Was this a move?

[Crake]

Ok so I've recently started DMing a game for some friends and they're in a crypt right now. They stumble upon a crumbling sarcophagus with rubies in a headstone sitting at its head. One of the players wanted to get the rubies out with his dagger, so I asked him to roll a strength check, inside my head mapping out that below 14 would be a failure, 15-17 being success and 18+ would be breaking the headstone, which would then fall onto the sarcophagus, breaking it open and releasing the ghoul inside.

Of course he rolls a natural 20 and proceeds to woop... until I explain to him what happens. He called **** move and after a short discussion we moved on, but was it really a **** move?

For some context, its a survival horror e6 game.

Edit: welp, got censored lol

[Pandiano]

Ok so I've recently started DMing a game for some friends and they're in a crypt right now. They stumble upon a crumbling sarcophagus with rubies in a headstone sitting at its head. One of the players wanted to get the rubies out with his dagger, so I asked him to roll a strength check, inside my head mapping out that below 14 would be a failure, 15-17 being success and 18+ would be breaking the headstone, which would then fall onto the sarcophagus, breaking it open and releasing the ghoul inside.

Of course he rolls a natural 20 and proceeds to woop... until I explain to him what happens. He called **** move and after a short discussion we moved on, but was it really a **** move?

For some context, its a survival horror e6 game.

Edit: welp, got censored lol

Perfectly reasonable, why would it be a censored move? What is his argument?

[Crake]

Perfectly reasonable, why would it be a censored move? What is his argument?

his argument was that a natural 20 should always be good.

[Gnomish Wanderer]

He was just upset, it sounds like. I would try explaining to the player that you were measuring how much strength he used trying to pry it out with the d20 rather than measuring his chance of success. I still wouldn't call it a **** move.

[mistformsquirrl]

In a standard game, I'd agree with your friend that a natural 20 ought to always be good... however in the context of a survival horror game things change. That kind of environment is supposed to make you at least a little paranoid after all... that's sort of the point.

So in that context I'm not sure I see a problem.

[Squirrel_Dude]

It's a ghoul, which can be nasty, but it's still a ghoul. So I wouldn't say it was that bad.


What I would recommend doing next time in a similar situation. Either:
1. Give the player an option to make a reflex save or dexterity check prevent the headstone from falling down on the sarcophagus. That way they feel like they have some kind of chance to prevent something from happening when they didn't really know it was a danger in the first place.

2. Give the rogue warning after 1 or 2 successful tries that the headstone is starting to loosen and could fall. That way he is aware of the risk and it doesn't feel like the whole party is being punished for him just grabbing some jewels.


So yeah, not that bad, but I can see where he would be upset.

[Ravens_cry]

Eh, I would. Private house rules that you don't mention? Yeah that there be a move I do not recommend. In d20, barring special exceptions, a 20 is a good thing. Not an automatic success in every case but still a, good thing.

[Tulya]

The transition from AD&D to 3rd edition marked the deliberate elimination of the remaining "roll under" mechanics for the more intuitive "roll to beat". It's not per se a quadruple asterisk move, but the player is right that the game mechanics are intended to have bigger rolls translate to better odds for a positive outcome for the roller. (Not even a natural 20 assures success on skill and ability checks unless you're using house rules to the contrary, so you can still fail dramatically on tasks regardless of the quality of your roll.)

Edit to elaborate:
You violated a fundamental assumption about the rules that the game encourages when you secretly set a roll under task, but not in a way that is inherently harmful. That is, a die roll is merely intended to produce a random result. So long as the odds remain constant, the designation of which numbers produce which result is arbitrary, and the given rule is merely for convenience.
The problem is that inconsistent application of rules without forewarning can suggest cheating - your player probably feels like you've rigged the challenge against them to produce the result you wanted, rather than allowing the dice to determine a random outcome.

[Pandiano]

I actually disagree of a 20 always being a good thing. In this case his goal was to get to the loot by damaging the container. The rolled 20 represents him doing that perfectly fine. The ghoul is a different thing. Its not like he was damaged by the container for his good roll, that would have been a **** move. His action was very succesfull, wat comes after has nothing to do with it in my opinion.

[Killer Angel]

Perfectly reasonable, why would it be a censored move? What is his argument?

I believe the censored part was about the forum filter... :smallamused:



Of course he rolls a natural 20 and proceeds to woop... until I explain to him what happens.

It was a strenght check to break the thing, so it's reasonable. It wasn't a dex check, or a skill check...
If I were the player, I would have a laugh.

[Crake]

Eh, I would. Private house rules that you don't mention? Yeah that there be a move I do not recommend. In d20, barring special exceptions, a 20 is a good thing. Not an automatic success in every case but still a, good thing.

to be fair, this wasn't the first time trying to loot a sarcophagus resulted in a problem due to over-rolling on a strength check. The first time he was trying to pull a sword out of a laying down statue's hands that was lying on a different sarcophagus. He ended up breaking it's hands and falling backwards taking a small amount (d6) of nonlethal falling damage.

He didn't even take the sword D=

[Tulya]

to be fair, this wasn't the first time trying to loot a sarcophagus resulted in a problem due to over-rolling on a strength check. The first time he was trying to pull a sword out of a laying down statue's hands that was lying on a different sarcophagus. He ended up breaking it's hands and falling backwards taking a small amount (d6) of nonlethal falling damage.

He didn't even take the sword D=

If they were already familiar with roll under checks in your game and you have no house rule making a natural 20 automatic success on skill and ability checks, then they have little room to complain.

[hymer]

Different expectations seems to be the problem, of course. I don't get why you asked him for a strength check, though? I mean, he could retry all he wanted, so it wasn't a question of whether he'd get his prize loosened, it was a question of whether he'd do it delicately or not.
Instead of asking for a strength check to see if he pried it loose, you could have asked for a dex check (or disable device), telling him the roll is to see if he damages the sarcophagus as he pries the rubies off.

Anyway, you and your players need to get on the same page with this, so you don't accidentally ruin your mutual fun. :smallsmile:

[Darrin]

I'm inclined to agree with the player. A natural 20 should always be a "critical success" that benefits the player in some way more than a simple success. Even in survival horror, a player should feel good about rolling a natural 20.

You could have kept the "breaking the headstone" mechanic but made it better for the player by having the headstone do some damage to the ghoul or pin him down for a round, giving the players a surprise round. I'm not sure how that would fit into the survival horror atmosphere, unless you hinted afterward that if the player hadn't rolled a natural 20, the ghoul popping out would have been much worse.

[Worira]

It's a strength check, not a clumsiness check. If your player wants to pry a ruby out of a headstone, don't first call for a strength check and then screw him over for having rolled a strength check.

[Ernir]

Nat 20 = good is a pretty well established convention in 3.5.

Dunno about it being a "**** move", but you were moving against a fundamental game assumption, and funny as it is, in my experience, people get more upset when their subconscious assumptions are proven false than their attempts at deduction are.

[CRtwenty]

I agree with some of the above posters that it was kind of a jerky move. A natural 20 is generally an automatic success without any strange things happening.

[Alienist]

The **** *** ***** treasure **** ** ****** ****** is ** ***** **** ***** buried ****. *** ****** ********* ** ** ***** **** under *** ***** **** ** *** ***** Lincoln's ***** **. *** *** **** ******** *** ****.

[Alienist]

I agree with some of the above posters that it was kind of a jerky move. A natural 20 is generally an automatic success without any strange things happening.

It's a horror campaign. If the DM having ghouls jump out at the party is 'a jerky move', you don't have a campaign anymore.

Sheesh. Kids these days.

[Kesnit]

Why didn't you just adjust the roll ranges? 1-14 is failure. 15-17 succeeds, but the headstone falls. 18-20, they get the gems without the ghoul appearing at that moment.

[Mystic Muse]

It's a horror campaign. If the DM having ghouls jump out at the party is 'a jerky move', you don't have a campaign anymore.

Sheesh. Kids these days.

The issue is with a natural 20 being a bad thing, not that there was a ghoul. I know if my DM didn't tell me that natural 20s could be bad, I'd be kinda mad. Though, it sounds like this was previously established, and if so, it is in no way a jerk move.

[Xaragos]

If you did this before I don't think its as bad relatively, but I tend to side with the player on this issue. Sure a Strength check of 20 indicates you pulled with extreme force, but it also represents that you achieved what you wanted to do to the best of your ability. So why throw a crappy consequence in his face when he did well? At least give him a reflex save or something to prevent said consequences from happening. While there is nothing necessarily wrong with doing what you did, targeting a specific strength (numerical range) that is not either over X or under Y period but instead Y<X is kind of unique. Personal choice, I wouldn't do it.

Edit:

I like this solution:

Why didn't you just adjust the roll ranges? 1-14 is failure. 15-17 succeeds, but the headstone falls. 18-20, they get the gems without the ghoul appearing at that moment.

[nedz]

Why didn't you just adjust the roll ranges? 1-14 is failure. 15-17 succeeds, but the headstone falls. 18-20, they get the gems without the ghoul appearing at that moment.

this really.
15-17 Partial success - Headstone breaks
18-20 Success

[Ashtagon]

I'd have made it that succeeding by exactly the amount needed resulted in that clumsiness fumble. Or even rolling a separate Dexterity check to avoid that fumble issue. But no high roll should ever be worse than a low roll.

Even in a horror setting.

[Studoku]

From the player's point of view, this may be what happened:

See treasure.
Decide to take it. It's probably a trap but it's treasure, right?
Roll a strength check
Roll a natural 20. Success!
DM decides natural 20 means I break it instead.
Ghoul enters the room aboard a steam engine.

[Telonius]

Personally I'd have ruled that extracting the rubies would have been a Disable Device check. It sounds pretty trap-like to me; fail bad enough, or in a certain way, and something attacks you. A failure would be "unable to pry off the rubies." A catastrophic failure (fail by five or more) would be "release the ghoul."

Strength really seems like the wrong thing to be rolling for. He's trying to do fiddly work and make sure something doesn't break while he's at it. If he were trying to break the sarcophagus, that's a Strength check.

In any case, he's a Rogue, in a horror campaign, trying to defile a sarcophagus without first checking for traps. That is just not going to end well.

[GnomeFighter]

Ye, I tend to agree with the others. It should realy have been a trap. Horror or not it is a bit bad to do it that way. If it was he tried to pry off the ruby without checking for traps then I would have said do a strenght check and anything high enough to get the ruby off would brake it. Checking it would have shown it was weak and lible to brake. Disableing the trap would be just ensureing it was stable. A trap dose not always have to be a man made "gears and spikes" trap.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Because of the conventions of the system, yes nat 20 being the worst or one of the worst outcomes is a **** move. rather than a high roll being applying too much strength you should have applied the very bad result to a low roll.

Rather than looking at the strength check as "how much force did I apply" try visualizing it as "how well did I apply force to this problem" the low roll could come result in the character putting a knee on the lip of the coffin allowing them to more effectively apply his back and leg muscles which applied more force than needed in an uncontrolled fashion. On a similar scale a nat 20 could be deftly popping the gem out with a flick of the wrist.

Alternatively as Worira said "it's a strength check, bot a clumsiness check" you should have used a strength check and a dex check or just a dex check if applying enough force was pretty much a forgone conclusion.

[Surfnerd]

For me, if I was using a strength check I would have just used 1-5failure tombstone comes crashing down you don't know your own strength tough guy. 6 to 16 they won't budge but the headstone begins to lean toward you. and 17 to 20 you get the gems from the headstone.

Then the player could actively choose his dumbness and say I want to wedge myself between the wall and push the headstone onto the ground (aka sarcophagus) continue to pull with every 6-16 roll increasing the chances of the tombstone collapsing. Adjusting it up 7 to 16, etc....

I can actually hear my players lamenting my decision to slap them in the face for rolling a 20. I know I would be a little miffed. I know the satisfaction of rolling a nat20 and then to the DM was like nope ha ha ha. I'd get grumbley

[Diarmuid]

Just going to pile on a bit here.

Penalizing a PC for a natural 20 goes against most d20 conventions.

Using a Strength check for the task at hand seems like square peg/round hole. Disable Device was probably the right thing to have used.

[killem2]

I do not see this as a jerk move as you were not being a jerk to do it. You had pre planned results and your player took it the wrong way, regardless of the module in question it's not a jerk move.

I do feel however, the disable device should be used or if str check is used, it should just be pass and crash, and fail and no cash, then run the normal spot checks/listen checks to see the ghoul vice versa.

[Gnaeus]

Lets assume that party is mistakenly attacking someone that they shouldn't kill. Say, the duke's captured daughter, covered by an illusion.

Rolls 20. Woot! Crit. Its dead.

As you investigate the body, you realize that you were tricked.

But I rolled a 20, thats supposed to be good, right? It should have made me miss, or knock her unconscious.

No. Game does not work that way. I agree with DMs ruling.

[Ashtagon]

Lets assume that party is mistakenly attacking someone that they shouldn't kill. Say, the duke's captured daughter, covered by an illusion.

Rolls 20. Woot! Crit. Its dead.

As you investigate the body, you realize that you were tricked.

But I rolled a 20, thats supposed to be good, right? It should have made me miss, or knock her unconscious.

No. Game does not work that way. I agree with DMs ruling.

False.

The OP example is error because the GM changeds the way the game mechanics worked.

Your example is error because the PCs had incomplete information on who they were attacking.

[hymer]

@ Gnaeus: I think the player feels it's more like attacking the guy running off with the duke's daughter over his shoulder, getting a crit, dropping the guy, but the attack also hits the daughter - which it wouldn't have done had it just been a regular hit.

I don't think it's very productive to assign blame in this case, though. Match up expectations for the future instead.

[Shining Wrath]

Yep. Higher rolls should produce superior results from the character's viewpoint.

[Rhynn]

Ability checks shouldn't have "too good" results, generally. It's going to mess with your players' heads in a bad way (not in the way you want to mess with their heads in a horror game). You should have made it two rolls - Strength to break it, Reflex to catch it.

Also, that's some seriously fragile stone.


Why didn't you just adjust the roll ranges? 1-14 is failure. 15-17 succeeds, but the headstone falls. 18-20, they get the gems without the ghoul appearing at that moment.

Also an excellent idea. "DC X to get it loose but the thing breaks, DC X+Y to get it loose and it doesn't break."

If you want to get fiddly and "realistic" (kinda pointless, though), applying strength isn't just about applying a lot of it, it's about applying it right. (Cf. melee attack rolls which are strength-based but are actually all about precision, not swinging hard.)


It's a horror campaign. If the DM having ghouls jump out at the party is 'a jerky move', you don't have a campaign anymore.

Sheesh. Kids these days.

That's not really go anything to do with it. I'd probably have had the ghoul jump at them anyway. Really, I'd probably have put something nastier in there - flesh-eating scarab beetles or venomous serpents pour out of the empty gem socket, or whatever, and then the ghoul jumps out behind the PCs.

[Person_Man]

Put me down in the "Natural 20 should be good for the Player" camp.

I can see situations where the Player succeeds, but their success leads to an unintended consequence. For example, the player succeeds at breaking down a door, but is surprised by enemies on the other side of the door because he didn't bother to Listen to it (or failed in doing so).

But in this particular case, the player intended to move a headstone and not open a sarcophagus, and thus feels cheated when his natural 20 resulted in doing something he did not want to physically do.

[Morbis Meh]

I personally think strength checks shoulds be viewed as 'the higher the number the higher the output' but instead 'the higher the number the more controlled your effort is/the ease at which you can do it' using the mechanics you've outlined 1-14: not enough effort therefore no gem 15-17: Enough effort but you're really just applying all that you've got in a wild uncontrolled exertion 18+: You are actively controlling the amount of force and pressure you're applying thus you have an easier time doing it.

The type of game it is in doesn't mean squat this is all based on agreed upon rules and player/GM trust. If rules were established and agreed then the player is just being whiny, if this is a new rule you threw in they yeah you have want to talk with your players... As for the player being exposed to it he may have not caught onto the mechanic for all he knew he just barely passed the save thus something bad /good happened but this time around he thought the natural 20 should have been enough to pass the bad things happen. He could still have been completely unaware of an upper threshold, from a mechanics standpoint the option you're going for makes checks much harder for your PC's since they don't know what they need to get to be in the 'sweet spot' and the way d20 systems are designed it kills incentive for players to try to design their characters. If their PC is too good at something they may be worried that they will be penalized for it and you as a DM will constantly have to adjust DC ranges to fit your players otherwise life will kind of suck as a PC lol

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Lets assume that party is mistakenly attacking someone that they shouldn't kill. Say, the duke's captured daughter, covered by an illusion.

Rolls 20. Woot! Crit. Its dead.

As you investigate the body, you realize that you were tricked.

But I rolled a 20, thats supposed to be good, right? It should have made me miss, or knock her unconscious.

No. Game does not work that way. I agree with DMs ruling.

That analogy would make sense, if the player was doing something outright wrong. He obviously wasn't, because the DM gave him a chance of success without a negative consequence.


Yep. Higher rolls should produce superior results from the character's viewpoint.

This, from the character's viewpoint, when the shot was made the insta-gib was a positive result.

I also support the idea that the headstone should have been treated as a trap and either a failed strength check "overexertion" or any strength check made without checking for traps could set it off triggering a reflex save.

[Shining Wrath]

That analogy would make sense, if the player was doing something outright wrong. He obviously wasn't, because the DM gave him a chance of success without a negative consequence.



This, from the character's viewpoint, when the shot was made the insta-gib was a positive result.

I also support the idea that the headstone should have been treated as a trap and either a failed strength check "overexertion" or any strength check made without checking for traps could set it off triggering a reflex save.

Yeah, it was a form of a trap, and just prying things loose without checking is likely to trigger a trap.

[Answerer]

The entirety of the d20 System is based on the idea that "higher = better". Your player is totally right to be perturbed that a natural 20 (which is intended to be the best possible result) resulted in very negative consequences. I don't think it was a **** move (since you preplanned it and ultimately the odds work out the same however you do it), but it was a mistake and a misunderstanding of the system. Lower rolls are worse results, higher rolls are better results.

[OracleofWuffing]

My opinion would hinge on whether or not the PC got rubies out of it.

If so, then the player got his reward for the skill check, regardless of what happens afterwards (barring something silly like a raven flying by and taking the rubies anyways). If not, then yeah, it's kind of lame to reward someone for acing a skill check with an unexpected combat. Unless, you know, failing would have resulted in a harder combat or something.

[Alienist]

I agree with some of the above posters that it was kind of a jerky move. A natural 20 is generally an automatic success without any strange things happening.

It's a horror campaign. If the DM having ghouls jump out at the party is 'a jerky move', you don't have a campaign anymore.

[Deophaun]

The problem is this sort of ruling messes with any sort of attempt at optimization. A player spends character resources to become good at prying things apart, maybe suffers through six levels of fighter to get the full dungeon crasher bonus, and now he's useless because he's "too good" by DM fiat. Should the cleric cast Bull's Strength on him to give him an edge? Heck no!

So yeah, **** move on your part. If you want something bad to happen, you do not set the DC higher than success.

Now, if you wanted to, you could have said 18-20 the player gets the option to drop the headstone on the sarcophagus. That's perfectly fine then.

[killem2]

I would also like to say to the OP, if you take from this some sort of guilt trip, don't change the outcome or go back and fiat anything (if you were thinking of doing that).

I would meerly let them know, (if you feel what you did was a mistake), telling them that this is how I thought it was suppose to go down, why it was done, and move on. I think doing this goes a long way. :smallwink:

[Telonius]

Just one more item to note ... whether it ended up being a Strength check, a Dex check, or a Skill check, you should really remind the player that a natural 20 is only an automatic success on attack rolls and saves, not on skill or ability checks.

[Ravens_cry]

It's a horror campaign. If the DM having ghouls jump out at the party is 'a jerky move', you don't have a campaign anymore.

Oh, horror is much, much, more than a simple 'jump scare'. In fact, such tactics are cheesy and actually aren't very scary, merely startling. A lot of horror comes from defying expectations. There is a room, the players hear a tumalt and commotion and on the other side . . . nothing there. Asking for random skill checks also create an unnerving atmosphere, and just when players start to get complacent, *that's* when you hit them. On the same theme, pass notes with unnerving details like having something whisper in thier ear, a chill hand brushing through their hair or . . . nothing. Again build this up just to the point of complacency and *then* you pull the encounter.
Also, most of us against this don't have a problem with the ghoul. The ghoul is incidental.

[Philistine]

@OP: it was kind of a jerk move, yes - not because a natural 20 sprung the ghoul, but because a lower result would have resulted in the PC getting the rubies without freeing it. Eliminating that band of Lower Roll=Better Result (say, by ruling that any success would also release the ghoul) would have changed it from "jerk move" to "what did you expect to happen when you went defiling graves... in the middle of a dungeon... in the course of a horror campaign?"

[KillianHawkeye]

@OP: it was kind of a jerk move, yes - not because a natural 20 sprung the ghoul, but because a lower result would have resulted in the PC getting the rubies without freeing it. Eliminating that band of Lower Roll=Better Result (say, by ruling that any success would also release the ghoul) would have changed it from "jerk move" to "what did you expect to happen when you went defiling graves... in the middle of a dungeon... in the course of a horror campaign?"

This is it exactly. The player was essentially punished for rolling too well. What utter BS.

[nedz]

You could have finessed it.
DM(IC) "You break the headstone and a ghoul emerges"
Player(OOC) "WTF! I rolled a twenty!"
DM(OOC) "yep, you was lucky." *Glances at notes* "Lucky, lucky, lucky."

[Karoht]

Two ways I view this specific application of the nat 20 rule.

1-The Perfect Success. The nat 20 means you used the exactly right amount of strength, rather than too much or two little.

2-The Explosive Success. The nat 20 means you explode with strength, and apply a maximum amount of strength.

I don't see it as a censored move, partly due to context, it is survival horror. Also, nat 20 success tend to float somewhere closer to application 2 rather than 1.

However, because of the 20 roll, I would have given that player some kind of advantage VS the Ghoul. Maybe some broken stone fell on the Ghoul and actually inflicted some damage. Maybe give that player the surprise round action VS the Ghoul.
I would have likely compensated with something.

Last option, while it is a horror setting, rule of funny could have applied as well. I'm usually okay with my DM screwing me over or fudging a rule if rule of funny is invoked and the cause and effect are both actually somewhat funny.

[Fyermind]

@OP
Generally don't think of higher checks as being stronger results, but closer to what is actually needed. consider the disable device skill. Serious success on disable device doesn't actually damage the device at all, where normal success does. Certainly a low roll means nothing happens is reasonable. You barely failed/barely made it means the headstone breaks in the process is pretty reasonable. You got it perfectly should probably be the domain of the higher numbers on the die if any.

Honestly I would be more upset about the falling damage from the sword. I mean, people fall down in combat frequently (I played a trip crashing fighter) but they never take damage from it. Why does a none combat check result in falling taking damage because I pulled too hard?

The ghouls although worse, don't strain the game nearly as much. Still in this world the way you have described your DMing I would be loath to ever touch the dice.

[Darius Kane]

It's a horror campaign. If the DM having ghouls jump out at the party is 'a jerky move', you don't have a campaign anymore.
The ghoul is not relevant to the move being jerky. The bad consequences of a good roll are. Stop with the strawman, please.

[LTwerewolf]

I don't agree that it was a bad move. A natural 20 is not always an automatic success, and it adds in a little more of people not becoming complacent. If you have the players I do, you need to mix things up because several of them have half the books memorized. Changing it a bit, especially on a check that does not guarantee automatic success, shouldn't be that horrible.

If it were on a check that guaranteed success, then yes, that would have been a **** move.

[Crake]

I think the irony of this all is actually that the player, even after everything happened, never actually retrieved the rubies from the broken headstone. The ghoul fight was actually rather intense and I had to pull some punches for them not to be completely demolished.

I'm still undecided on if I want to get on the higher is better bandwagon though. I do kinda prefer doing it this way, and the players have two examples of it now, so its not like they haven't seen me rule it this way before.

[Togo]

I think it was a bit of a bad move. Violating assumptions about natural 20s isn't really the point, the problem is that you decided what the character was doing, and then punished him for it.

He's trying to remove gemstones. From that point you make a number of assumptions.

You assume he's going to use brute force, rather than be careful.
You assume that he's not going to worry about breaking the headstone.
You assume that, if he breaks the headstone, there's nothing he can do about that.

In other words, you decided before he even rolled the dice that he could only suceed by chance, and that his character's efforts were irrelvent. So when he got the best possible dice roll, you didn't give him the best possible result. Which is bad, not just because of expectation clash, but because you're telling the player that his character's efforts don't matter.

I wouldn't make a huge deal out of this, but yeah, I think it was a mistake. just rearrange the outcomes so the PC doing better reaches a more favourable result. Not just because of convention, but so the player feels his character is actually doing something useful.

[Rhynn]

It's a horror campaign. If the DM having ghouls jump out at the party is 'a jerky move', you don't have a campaign anymore.

That's not related to the point, though. The point is "player rolled natural 20, thinks it's a jerk move to make that a bad thing." Forget the ghoul.


You could have finessed it.
DM(IC) "You break the headstone and a ghoul emerges"
Player(OOC) "WTF! I rolled a twenty!"
DM(OOC) "yep, you was lucky." *Glances at notes* "Lucky, lucky, lucky."

Now this is artful, traditional DMing... :smallcool:

[Vastly]

As a general rule, I'd suggest structuring your improvised roll mechanics around higher results being better. And further I'd suggest implying potential consequences in your descriptions of the environment, and if your players ask to, allow them to make skill checks to see/figure out these hazards.

The problem I see isn't that what you did was a jerk move, but you soured a moment for your player by defying inherent mechanic assumptions of a d20 system.

A natural 20 shouldn't mean "Players get the best outcome automatically" but should usually be "Better for the player based off their intention at that moment". Which in the case described would have been to either bypass the falling headstone, or at least the opportunity to stop/avoid it. Either way it simply needs to be consistent with the rule system used to play the game. Being inconsistent often feels like cheating to the player, and will often be viewed as the DM actively trying to kill or pick on player(s).

That said, here's a horror freebie, from someone who enjoys horror campaigns and has managed to make players need to leave the room because "They're just too freaked out". I'll spoiler it so it doesn't take up too much room. Enjoy.

The scariest thing you can do is, nothing at all. What does that mean exactly? It means you imply terrible things can happen through your descriptions and background music, but only sometimes have something actually come of those implications, often when the players act brazen or foolishly. This is also assuming you've already well established the mortality of your players, aka, they can die (you don't have to kill anyone to do this mind you).

Best example I have was a monstrous humanoid that the players came across while escaping some cultists in an underground tunnel system. The moment they entered the room I started playing a very grating and intense music. At first it just stood there and I made it as creepy through my description as possible (you always saw the back of its head, no matter the angle viewed, even if multiple players looked at him from opposite sides). One player got brave and wandered close to it, and decided to poke it with a stick. Then through a succession of positively dreadful rolls, an NPC with the group got grabbed and had it's head crushed like a grape and the party fled with their tails between their legs.

Ever since that event, I'd randomly decide to play that music and watch as the players start freaking out. He doesn't always show up, but that just makes it all the more tense, because the music means he could.

[OracleofWuffing]

I think the irony of this all is actually that the player, even after everything happened, never actually retrieved the rubies from the broken headstone.
I believe some sad trombones are in order. :smalltongue:

[ArcturusV]

I'm honestly wondering through why a Rogue wouldn't have used something else to do the job rather than a strength check. This is exactly the sort of finesse work that falls under Sleight of Hand and Disable Device. Probably would favor sleight of hand in this case. To which the tombstone falling doesn't quite make sense. Not being at the table, and not having heard the situation as it developed I'm not even sure with a strength check the headstone falling necessarily makes sense.

That might be where the Asterisking Move bit comes in. If it feels like it was a critical failure just for the sakes of having a critical failure, rather than being organic to the situation.

[Phelix-Mu]

Eh, it wasn't that bad. Natural 20 being a success is what people expect, so you were stepping on expectations.

That said, there is nothing special about the 15% between 18 and 20 over the 15% 15-17. Either way, the player still had a chance of triggering the effect. The check determined the success of action x (remove rubies from headstone by force...not wise anyway, rubies aren't diamonds...). The DM decided that roughly half of all successful strength checks results in an unintended consequence. Unintended consequence is entirely the DM's purview. You can annihilate the enemy hill giant with some natural 20 crits, but that doesn't mean that the DM can't have the body of the hill giant fall on you/your friend/something important.

Frankly, the sketchiness is that the DM made two possibilities resulting from the same successful roll. The more prudent thing to do would have been either
a.) Make all successful strength checks break the headstone, and all broken headstones free the ghoul.
b.) Make it two separate rolls. One to free the rubies, one to maybe...catch the headstone as it falls? Some kind of chance (however difficult) to ameliorate the result.

Anyway, in a horror campaign, I would not be prying stuff out of headstones. Just saying, maybe in-character, but that is the kind of behavior that is best to discard quickly with growing experience. Grave robbing is kind of par for the course in D&D, but that doesn't mean it has no consequences.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I don't think it was a jerk move, I think it was an honest mistake.

In my mind, doing better on an ability check means that you are more able to effectively use whatever attribute you possess. Breaking the headstone and unleashing the ghoul would've actually been a very good way to fail. "You rolled 7, that's a failure; as you're tugging at the rubies, you overexert yourself and break the headstone."

I would've laid it out like this...

"Roll a Strength check. On a 16+, you get the rubies.

On 13-15, choose one: you do not break open the sarcophagus, you get the rubies, or you get away before the ghoul wakes up.

On a failure, you smash open the sarcophagus and get jumped by the ghoul."

Or something like that. (Very heavily cribbing from Dungeon World here...)

The second problem is the part where you mapped it out in your head and didn't lay out the stakes. You can't just do that, especially if you're going to deviate from the normal dice paradigm. You challenged one of the fundamental assumptions of d20, and you only told the player after they rolled. For all they knew, you threw a bad result after them because you were sore that they got a crit. From your player's perspective, you just fudged a critical success, which I know I'd call foul on.

[Ivellius]

I'm in the minority and won't take time to respond to any others, but I don't see this as a bad decision at all. If I were playing and had that happen, I'd think, "Oh, we really should've been more careful about that." A great result on a Strength check wouldn't bother me with the negative consequences you described; it makes plenty of sense. As others have noted, a natural 20 on a skill check doesn't mean anything special other than you made the best possible check you could've.

However, I would say that they should've been able to make Spot and/or Search checks to figure out that breaking the sarcophagus might happen.

Oh for the days when I wasn't always a Dungeon Master...

[Winter_Wolf]

Let us say that what I see in the OP was an error in judgment. I doubt you were intending a jerk move, but this wasn't a game of 2E, was it? If it were, I wouldn't have batted an eye, because rolling high isn't always good.

On the other hand, it's been long established that higher = better in 3.P games. That's like one of the core principles in 3.x games, isn't it? Unless you had operational house rules stating differently that everyone was aware of, it would be pretty easy to see why a player would cry foul when a ghoul climbed out of the broken sarcophagus (clearly a 'negative result') on a really high roll (which the game mechanics typically say is 'positive result').

As for how I personally would have reacted to that scenario if I were player in question, I probably would have said something eloquent, like "oh S(p)it." when the ghoul burst out, then not have given it another thought beyond trying to dispose of or outrun the cursed thing. Unless the ghoul brutally slaughtered him, I'd think of it as one of those reminiscences that players tend to repeat ad nausea when they're "reliving the good ol' days".

[Alienist]

Throw them in the Tomb of Horrors if they keep whining.

[Spuddles]

I think the irony of this all is actually that the player, even after everything happened, never actually retrieved the rubies from the broken headstone. The ghoul fight was actually rather intense and I had to pull some punches for them not to be completely demolished.

I'm still undecided on if I want to get on the higher is better bandwagon though. I do kinda prefer doing it this way, and the players have two examples of it now, so its not like they haven't seen me rule it this way before.

You should probably inform your players that you are changing the fundamental rules that bigger numbers are better to d20 roll + too many bonuses = bad thing AND d20 roll + too few bonuses = failure.

I don't know why you are so intent on screwing the players over completely arbitrarily. At least just set tasks with high DCs. The way you have it set up now, the better the players get at something, the more likely they are to fail. Why would you do that without telling your players?

It's like having a jump check over a pit and telling everyone who succeeded by 10 or more over jumped and fell into the pit on the other side. Other than having no idea what you're doing, it really comes off as an ******* move.

[hiryuu]

I'm with anyone saying it's not that important and not a jerk move, really. He got the treasure, right? As long as the ghoul didn't really kill him and made the experience more fun, then it's all good. If it made it not fun, then it's not.

Remember that "natural 20" DOES NOT auto succeed on ability checks or skill checks. It just means 20.

Otherwise I refer to the "When Too Much is Too Much" rule from TFOS.

[Spuddles]

I'm with anyone saying it's not that important and not a jerk move, really. He got the treasure, right? As long as the ghoul didn't really kill him and made the experience more fun, then it's all good. If it made it not fun, then it's not.

Remember that "natural 20" DOES NOT auto succeed on ability checks or skill checks. It just means 20.

Otherwise I refer to the "When Too Much is Too Much" rule from TFOS.

The party did not get the loot, they were almost killed by the ghoul, and the experience was less fun.

The problem isn't that the rogue rolled a natural 20 and it failed, it's that he was using the d20 system and somehow managed to roll too high.

The entire system is predicated on the idea that more bonuses give you better results. Characters get better because they get more skill ranks or higher ability scores. With Crake's made up system, players actually get worse the "better" they are. For some games it's perfectly fine, but putting it in a d20 game like D&D where it runs counter to almost the entire system. And Crake has implemented it, rather poorly, as he told none of his players, has let it cause problems, and continues to not inform his players that they can be so good at something it kills them.

[Morbis Meh]

The party did not get the loot, they were almost killed by the ghoul, and the experience was less fun.

The problem isn't that the rogue rolled a natural 20 and it failed, it's that he was using the d20 system and somehow managed to roll too high.

The entire system is predicated on the idea that more bonuses give you better results. Characters get better because they get more skill ranks or higher ability scores. With Crake's made up system, players actually get worse the "better" they are. For some games it's perfectly fine, but putting it in a d20 game like D&D where it runs counter to almost the entire system. And Crake has implemented it, rather poorly, as he told none of his players, has let it cause problems, and continues to not inform his players that they can be so good at something it kills them.

Exactly this... there is no motivation to make a character good at anything out of fear of rolling too high. You may as well play an entirely different system and just roll a d6 instead of actually building a character. It has nothing to do with the horror aspect of the game but everything to do with using a poorly implemented homebrew system in a game that directly conflicts with said system.

[KillianHawkeye]

Yeah, just forget about the fact that it was a natural 20 for a minute. We'd be having the same problems with this if he rolled a 19 and got a worse result than rolling a 15 would have gotten. The whole premise of the d20 system is that higher numbers make your chances of success get higher.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Yeah, just forget about the fact that it was a natural 20 for a minute. We'd be having the same problems with this if he rolled a 19 and got a worse result than rolling a 15 would have gotten. The whole premise of the d20 system is that higher numbers make your chances of success get higher.
Right. The fact that it was a nat 20 just puts the situation into even more extreme relief.

[Crake]

For those wondering, my justification on strength check over say dex check or sleight of hand or disable device is that the rubies were quite an integral part of the headstone (and quite large too) and as such were quite wedged in there, so removing them would require digging a dagger in and levering them out, and doing so with excessive force would crack the headstone.

As for those of you saying he should have gotten a reflex save or something to catch the headstone as it fell, I would have given him something like that if he had mentioned anything about trying to stop it, but he didn't, I gave him ample time to try and catch it, but he seemed content with letting it fall. I can understand why not though, most people who try to catch falling headstones end up with crushed limbs. It was quite a large headstone btw, the sarcophagus was that of a king.

[hiryuu]

The party did not get the loot, they were almost killed by the ghoul, and the experience was less fun.

I call badwrongfun.

No one said that the party didn't get it, and I assume if it fell into a sarcophagus, you can just reach down and grab it. Seriously. A sarcophagus isn't that big.

Also, it's a horror game. I'd be glad if it was just a ghoul and not a mummy.

It'd be more fun just to collect treasure and gain levels without overcoming any obstacles?


The problem isn't that the rogue rolled a natural 20 and it failed, it's that he was using the d20 system and somehow managed to roll too high.

Ignore "natural 20." On an ability check, that means jack and squat. Actually, I'd look at it another way: I got treasure AND experience points out of it. Seriously, again, it's a horror game, the point is to get freaked out and backed into no win situations and pick the lesser of two evils and get dangled over pits of scorpions and so on.


The entire system is predicated on the idea that more bonuses give you better results. Characters get better because they get more skill ranks or higher ability scores. With Crake's made up system, players actually get worse the "better" they are. For some games it's perfectly fine, but putting it in a d20 game like D&D where it runs counter to almost the entire system. And Crake has implemented it, rather poorly, as he told none of his players, has let it cause problems, and continues to not inform his players that they can be so good at something it kills them.

This happening does inform the players. I don't hear about how anyone is dead. I don't hear about how the game is breaking up. Heck, is the player the only one who was worried about it?

Because honestly, the only ones to whom it matters are the group.

Just go back and talk to each other. I find that solves the most problems. All you're going to get on the internet are arguments that you should allow drowning people to heal them because otherwise you're a big meany control freak.

[qwertyu63]

Personally, I'd say you did just fine. I have no issues with the idea of "doing too well" as long as he could have done something about it.

Then again, I have used my own "over-check" rules. Roll one thing (in this case a Strength roll), and you must beat the first DC. Your check result becomes the DC for a second check (in this case I would use a reflex save) where failure means you have consequences (like the whole ghoul thing). [The one time I used this before, it was an Intimidate check to get some people to talk to you, followed by a Diplomacy check to calm them enough to say more than a few words.]

[Spuddles]

I call badwrongfun.

No one said that the party didn't get it, and I assume if it fell into a sarcophagus, you can just reach down and grab it. Seriously. A sarcophagus isn't that big.

Also, it's a horror game. I'd be glad if it was just a ghoul and not a mummy.

It'd be more fun just to collect treasure and gain levels without overcoming any obstacles?



Ignore "natural 20." On an ability check, that means jack and squat. Actually, I'd look at it another way: I got treasure AND experience points out of it. Seriously, again, it's a horror game, the point is to get freaked out and backed into no win situations and pick the lesser of two evils and get dangled over pits of scorpions and so on.



This happening does inform the players. I don't hear about how anyone is dead. I don't hear about how the game is breaking up. Heck, is the player the only one who was worried about it?

Because honestly, the only ones to whom it matters are the group.

Just go back and talk to each other. I find that solves the most problems. All you're going to get on the internet are arguments that you should allow drowning people to heal them because otherwise you're a big meany control freak.

Read the thread, ffs.

[DrDeth]

I agree with the player here. Assuming you are saying that a high roll succeeds in getting loot without awaking monster, then indeed, the very highest roll must succeed in doing that.

Of course, it could have been any successful removal of gems awoke the monster, in which case your ruling would have been fine: “The brightest ruby springs easily into your hand, but you hear a grinding noise as the sarcophagus opens…” So, a 20 doesn’t always have to be GOOD, but it does have to be better or at least as good as a 15.

Richard move.:smallbiggrin:

[Unusual Muse]

I would be more inclined to put that kind of result on the low-roll end of the spectrum, like rolling a 1. Or if you want to increase the likelihood of the ghoul encounter, 1-5. But a natural 20 is supposed to be a successful outcome.

[Gildedragon]

Essentially:
If one rolls a 20 and something bad happens one feels there is nothing that could have been done to avoid such outcome. Therefore one feels the DM set one up for failure, made more galling by it being a tough battle with few rewards for resources spent, and thus one feels the DM is being needlessly cruel, whether that is the case or not.

A rolling system should allow the players to figure out how good their roll is, relatively speaking.
Assume the Rogue had had luck feats that allowed them to reroll any one ability check. Had they known 20 was bad they'd have opted to reroll it, whereas without said knowledge they'd not have done so. If you'd sprung a trap and said "yeah 20's were bad news" the luck-rogue would feel undully picked on as you would have targeted their character specifically.
To a lesser extent that is what has happened in your case.

[Alienist]

Read the thread, ffs.

Don't be rude, his contribution is just as relevant as yours.

Some would say moreso, in the light of this piece of RAW
"Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure."

----

That the player repeatedly keeps choosing not to get treasure after these rolls indicates a problem, not with the DM, but with the player. The player may have the mentality that the DM doesn't 'want' him to have good things, so small setbacks make him immediately give up.

[Spuddles]

Don't be rude, his contribution is just as relevant as yours.

Some would say moreso, in the light of this piece of RAW
"Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure."

----

That the player repeatedly keeps choosing not to get treasure after these rolls indicates a problem, not with the DM, but with the player. The player may have the mentality that the DM doesn't 'want' him to have good things, so small setbacks make him immediately give up.

...read the thread.

[ArcturusV]

Or rather you could suggest to the rogue he tries more finesse to his stuff instead of pure strength checks. If it was a Sleight of Hand check, probably wouldn't have triggered the trap.

Then again also telling the player before he rolled "Okay, if you do 1-13, fail. 14-18, success, 19-20 success but..."

Whcih is something I have done before, with no complaints from players. If I'm not using a roll like that, and it's just standard "high is good, low is bad" I don't bother to tell them DCs, to hit numbers, etc. But when there's a soft spot... sure.

It's not like the concept is necessarily THAT far out of hand. The concept of "rolling too good" does exist in the game. For example of one that came up: My party's rogue tried to KO a guy to kidnap. He used a blackjack and sneak attacked with it. His damage with the Sneak Attack was so high that he rolled over 50. Which triggers the "Death due to massive damage" rule. Which the NPC in question failed on as it was just a first level aristocrat (Wife of a BBEG they wanted to blackmail). So despite intent, did FAR too well and killed the poor woman without intending it.

[KillianHawkeye]

Don't be rude, his contribution is just as relevant as yours.

Some would say moreso, in the light of this piece of RAW
"Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure."

No, it's NOT relevant. Auto-success is a red herring in this case. It has nothing to do with ANYTHING here.

The problem is that making the outcome resulting from a high number worse than a medium number--regardless of what the specific numbers are--is mathematically unsound given the utmost basic framework of the d20 system. It DOES NOT MATTER if it was a 20 vs a 15, a 15 vs a 10, or a 5 vs a 1. In ANY of these cases, if the lower number creates a more favorable result than the higher number, it completely destroys the very basic mechanic of the game in which you add higher skill ranks or attack bonus or whatever kind of bonus for whatever kind of check you're attempting to represent the character getting better at it.

Or to put it another way: if a higher number is not better, then the numbers just stop meaning anything. You'll get to a point where you need to roll the exact DC, not higher and not lower, in order to achieve success, and at that point there's no point in having a skill at all anymore.



EDIT:

The concept of "rolling too good" does exist in the game. For example of one that came up: My party's rogue tried to KO a guy to kidnap. He used a blackjack and sneak attacked with it. His damage with the Sneak Attack was so high that he rolled over 50. Which triggers the "Death due to massive damage" rule.

You're wrong, BTW. Massive damage rules don't come into play at all with nonlethal attacks.

[Unusual Muse]

This scenario puts me in mind of the good ol' days... remember AD&D had all those "01-00" percentile charts where you roll two ten-siders, with different outcomes for stuff depending on where you landed in the percentages? In almost all cases the best outcomes were reserved for the upper percentiles, often with a "crazy-good" outcome if you nailed the 00. Conversely, the crappy outcomes were nested in the lower percentiles, and if you rolled a 01 something terrible happened.

I think the mistake made in the OP's scenario is just that the crappy outcome was placed in the wrong percentile. The "success with consequences" outcome should not be in the 00 slot; that slot's for pure-win-awesomeness.

[Answerer]

If it was a pure percentile roll, it would be a minor thing (the expectation is that higher is better but ultimately the odds are all the same).

But making a player's good stats work against them is a very bad idea.

[ArcturusV]

The d100 usually reminded me of Random Encounter charts, where 100 was "Roll twice and add results". :smallbiggrin: Fun, terrible, fun, bad times all around.

I have never seen anything state that Massive Damage rules do not apply to non-lethal. And I know. I looked. One of my players mentioned it at the time, I poured through things best I could for about 10 minutes. Did it after the session too. Nowhere does it say "non-lethal does not trigger massive damage". Just says "When you take damage". And that is damage taken. The closest I can see is the generalized (And probably more fluff than Rule) statement saying "Non-lethal damage won't kill you". Versus the specific example in Massive Damage of taking 50 damage in a single attack. Also the fact that the general "Non-lethal damage won't kill you" eventually got more or less nullified by fixing some silly rules stuff in later books. Like it being impossible to starve to death (It only deals non-lethal damage, so it just puts you into a coma until someone feeds you). I think it was Sandstorm that changed that?

[Averis Vol]

I don't know if this has been answered yet, but did any serious harm come from the ghoul? If it did I might be a little irked, but I'd just brush it off as "the DM probably planned for this to happen if anyone went for the jewels."

I think what you did was fine, just don't start penalizing things where nat 20s matter.

[snoopy13a]

You should have done:

14 or under: failure
15-17: break stone and fall in
18+: success

A 20 should always be a success. If success isn't possible, then don't have the player bother rolling.

[Answerer]

A 20 should always be a success. If success isn't possible, then don't have the player bother rolling.
That's not true; a 20 is not (and should not be) an automatic success for ability or skill checks. That said, a 20 is a failure only when 20+bonus is insufficient to meet the DC for success, never because 20+bonus is "too much."

[snoopy13a]

That's not true; a 20 is not (and should not be) an automatic success for ability or skill checks. That said, a 20 is a failure only when 20+bonus is insufficient to meet the DC for success, never because 20+bonus is "too much."

If a 20 isn't a success then the GM should tell the player that they automatically fail and not to bother rolling at all.

The one exception is with skills that have different degrees of failure.

[Ravens_cry]

If a 20 isn't a success then the GM should tell the player that they automatically fail and not to bother rolling at all.

The one exception is with skills that have different degrees of failure.
Now this, this I can see actually it being a horror campaign being a valid excuse. One of the biggest fears is the fear of the unknown, and not knowing if it is even possible to succeed or if you just found yourself unknowingly up a river of effluent without a means of propulsion can be potentially a good way to make the players sweat, and, as meta as it may be, making players sweat makes it easier to make their characters sweat.

[Spuddles]

If a 20 isn't a success then the GM should tell the player that they automatically fail and not to bother rolling at all.

The one exception is with skills that have different degrees of failure.

If the DC to break something is a 22, then a rogue with 10 strength isn't going to be able to anything about it. A fighter with 16 strength, a crowbar, and a little time will break it.

[Killer Angel]

And Crake has implemented it, rather poorly, as he told none of his players, has let it cause problems,

This is not true. :smallannoyed:


to be fair, this wasn't the first time trying to loot a sarcophagus resulted in a problem due to over-rolling on a strength check. The first time he was trying to pull a sword out of a laying down statue's hands that was lying on a different sarcophagus.

The players already knew that they can over-roll a strenght check.
You can only argue on the "poorly implemented" part, not that it was unexpected or made up out of the blue.

[ericgrau]

You mean the gem wasn't wired directly to the ghoul to awaken regardless of how gently the gem was removed? I'd say you gotta work on your fantasy tropes.

I don't think excessively high rolls should mean a lack of control. But this time it was totally harmless. I'd say the ghoul should have awakened no matter how the gem was removed, and he's only CR 1. Next time it might actually cause a problem. Especially on those who have a high modifier and almost always get a high result. Where's their option to be gentle then? Whether the rule is well known or not. Can they at least take a 10? If not then it is arbitrarily screwing over those who are good at one thing, but not those who are good at other things. Smashing things is one of the biggest utility options brutes have; don't take that away from them.

[Socratov]

So, as I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong)

rubies in headstone, rogue goes to loot, str check to pry the rubies loose. If headstone falls due to meddeling -> ghoul. If headstone doesn't fall -> no ghoul.

So, first some ruledigging:

natural 20 is automatic success on attack and/or save, else 'just' a 20 (just not really justified, becuase a 20 bonus on a check is still quite big, especially on ability checks). So a 20 on a str check is not an automatic success (I believe this has been pointed out at some point or other)

So the rogue pries the rubies loose with a str check. 14 failure, 15 and up success (they come loose). 18+ break the headstone

Now the bolded part is where it's at.

A strengthcheck is a check to see how much force you apply in a given situation (to see if you break down the door/break something). Now, in this case it's a bit sad that a higher number actually has a bad consequence: the headstone breaking and awakening the ghoul.

In a manner of description it would look like this: [-inf~14] the rubies won't budge out of the headstone and stay put. [15~17] The rubies pop out of the headstone. The headstone crumbles a bit as dust and debris go everywhere. [18~inf] you tter the headstone and retrieve the rubies. The broken parts of the headstone fall down the pedestal(?) onto the sarcophagus and free the ghoul inside.

If htis is how strength works then yeah, tough luck, but not a (asteriskasteriskasteriskasterisk)-move. Brute force is often a great way to solve things, but overdoing it will have it's consequences.

On the otherhand, if a strengthroll (by the rules) is to see how well you apply strength to a given situation (implying control) then it's like this: [-inf~14]you fail to apply enough force to get the rubies. [15~17]you apply enough force, but overdo it. Headstone shatters -> ghoul awakened [18~inf] you carefully apply enough strength to pry the rubies loose without breaking the headstone. In this case it is indeed a (asteriskasteriskasteriskasterisk)-move

the question is what, according to the rules, is more logical.The second instance emphasises control, even though control is more the domain of dexterity.Strength (in the SRD at least) is for the brute force of things. I'd not rule this a (asteriskasteriskasteriskasterisk)-move and a typical example of how things can go wrong when brute force is used (delicacy people! not just brute force, but try to handle things with care!). So the player should stop whining since it's perfectly reasonable to rule this way. I think the player is mostly upset that his 20 on the d20 wasn't acknowledged as a freaking miracle bending the powers that be to his wil in that instant... :smallyuk:

[Worira]

Except that the DM is the one who called for a strength check rather than a dexterity check in the first place.

[Ashtagon]

Saying that rolling 20 on a strength check means you break something else in addition to what you were trying to break is like saying that rolling a 20 on a Knowledge check menas you overthink and fall into a meditiative trance for an hour while thinking up the answer.

[Socratov]

Saying that rolling 20 on a strength check means you break something else in addition to what you were trying to break is like saying that rolling a 20 on a Knowledge check menas you overthink and fall into a meditiative trance for an hour while thinking up the answer.

no, a higher knowledge check means that you not only remember what you wanted to know, but a lot more details as well:

example (made up):

DC 5: you know a fighter is a weapon user
DC 10: a fighter is a masger of arms studying to better utilize his weapon making swifter attacks and using them in more efficient and powerful ways.
DC 30: [metagame knowledge, including featpicks]

EVen though you needed 5, if you get to 30 you know what you wanted and more details to boot. Besides, a natural 20 on anything but attacks and saves is just a 20, nothing automatic success about it or overpowering. And yeah, the DM called for the str check (although dex could be used here or some skill to make it easier) it's sad, but still true. too much str check you break stuff, and that has consequences. But only numerical and no fuzz about critical successes. It's only the critical successes where the magic shiny stuff happens (with attacks and saves, and only then). :smallsigh:

[Xenogears]

no, a higher knowledge check means that you not only remember what you wanted to know, but a lot more details as well:

example (made up):

DC 5: you know a fighter is a weapon user
DC 10: a fighter is a masger of arms studying to better utilize his weapon making swifter attacks and using them in more efficient and powerful ways.
DC 30: [metagame knowledge, including featpicks]

EVen though you needed 5, if you get to 30 you know what you wanted and more details to boot. Besides, a natural 20 on anything but attacks and saves is just a 20, nothing automatic success about it or overpowering. And yeah, the DM called for the str check (although dex could be used here or some skill to make it easier) it's sad, but still true. too much str check you break stuff, and that has consequences. But only numerical and no fuzz about critical successes. It's only the critical successes where the magic shiny stuff happens (with attacks and saves, and only then). :smallsigh:

Notice how in your example you are not in fact penalized for getting a higher number? So it's not actually like the example in the OP.

I agree with Ashtagon here. It would be like saying that if you get less than a 10 on a knowledge check you fail to recall anything useful, if you get a 10-15 you recall useful information, and if you get a 15-20 you over think and all you can remember is a 3 page entry in the book about their skin colour.

[Fouredged Sword]

The assumption is that more = better with 3.5.

Consider this. If you are strong enough you can easily lift the headstone in a controlled manner. Too little strength and the headstone can be moved, but not in a controlled manner.

I would have applied a critical failure zone UNDER the threshold for success, and under the threshold for nothing happening.

Say that you set the DC to move the headstone at DC 15. Then say there is a 5 point under critical level that if they roll 5 points under the DC the headstone falls. If they roll above the critical failure DC and bellow the DC15 they start to lift the headstone, realize that it is about to tip, and set it back in place. They may then decide to ether let it tip or leave it.

This move the mechanic back into something more like the traditional trap mechanics that the system is used to.

[Gildedragon]

Imagine the rogue had STR 10 (0) and so they ask the party spell caster for help, and is given a +1 bonus to the upcoming check. they roll a 17, which becomes an 18 and they fail. Had the spell caster not helped it would have been a success.
The problem should be obvious

[Unusual Muse]

I think a more satisfying way to handle this type of thing would be to have a totally separate roll for the ghoul awakening. You could set it up a couple ways:

1. The headstone is really fragile, nearly crumbling, and any attempt to manipulate the gem will have a [50% or whatever you like] chance of causing the fragile stone to crumble and awaken the ghoul;

2. The headstone is pretty solid; but the gem lies over a fault in the stone, and it's removal could be sufficiently traumatic to crack open the ancient headstone. If the PC fails the "remove gem" check, nothing happens. If the check succeeds, there's a [80% or whatever you like] chance the headstone cracks and awakens the ghoul.

[ZamielVanWeber]

A strengthcheck is a check to see how much force you apply in a given situation (to see if you break down the door/break something).

A strength check is a check to see how WELL you apply your strength; the strength score does not change for the check, so your actual applied strength wouldn't change. A roll of 20 implies that you have applied it to the most optimum level your character can, which in turns makes it somewhat nonsensical for sub-optimal use to create the optimal situation, but optimal use has negative consequences.

[Tulya]

Imagine the rogue had STR 10 (0) and so they ask the party spell caster for help, and is given a +1 bonus to the upcoming check. they roll a 17, which becomes an 18 and they fail. Had the spell caster not helped it would have been a success.
The problem should be obvious

Player: I cast Guidance of the Avatar for a +20 competence bonus to my check.
DM: The good news is that you became competent enough to achieve your desired goal regardless of the winds of fortune. The bad news is that you became so ridiculously competent, you actually became overconfident and were unable to apply your ability optimally. Thus, the only possible outcome was success with consequences due to your incompetent application of your ability.

[Unusual Muse]

Player: I cast Guidance of the Avatar for a +20 competence bonus to my check.
DM: The good news is that you became competent enough to achieve your desired goal regardless of the winds of fortune. The bad news is that you became so ridiculously competent, you actually became overconfident and were unable to apply your ability optimally. Thus, the only possible outcome was success with consequences due to your incompetent application of your ability.

Under the "higher strength roll = more power generated" paradigm, this would be equivalent to adding 40 to your ability score for Strength... which would be pretty ridiculous and a far cry from "guaranteed success at your next check."

[Killer Angel]

Come on! it's basically a variation of this trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoesNotKnowHisOwnStrength). :smallwink:

[Lonely Tylenol]

The d20 Strength check is not a measure of "how much strength do you use"; it's a measure of "how well do you apply your strength". Your STR score is not a variable number when you need to roll it for a d20 check: you have the exact same STR modifier, carrying capacity, and all other effects dependent on your STR score whether you roll a 1 or a 20 or any number in-between; it's how efficiently your STR is being applied that is being measured with a d20 roll (with a higher number always being objectively better than a lower number, because it's the degree of success being measured, not the amount of force being applied).

Consider this example. Tordek, the Half-Orc Barbarian (PHB), STR 17, tries to make a Strength check on a good door (DC18). He rolls a 5, for a total result of 8, and fails to break the door. Mailee, the Elf Wizard (PHB again), STR 8, decides she can do it better, and STR checks the door. She rolls a 20, for a total result of 19, and succeeds in breaking down the door. Did Mailee apply more strength on the door than Tordek? Of course not; Mailee does not have more Strength. She did, however, apply the strength she had better, which gave her a greater degree of success than Tordek. How, exactly, this is measured depends on what would determine success and failure; perhaps Tordek threw his (significantly greater) weight into the door nearer the hinges, whereas Mailee applied her strength much closer to the handle, which caused the door to break at the point of least resistance (the mechanical components of the handle, or the shoddy wooden bar holding it together).

Look at how this dichotomy is represented in skill checks. The Jump skill represents, as a matter of skill DCs, exactly how far you jump with a single jump (5 feet for every 5 points on the check result); however, when making a Jump check to cross a chasm or something of the equivalent, you only need meet the DC in order to successfully jump to the other end--it doesn't actually measure the distance you jump unless you are physically trying to jump further than the minimum distance. Suppose, for example, that the "other end" is a 10'x10' platform. The DC to cross the chasm is 15, since it's a 15-foot jump. Regardless of how far you can actually jump, this is the number you are trying to beat. If you were to jump more than 25 feet, for whatever reason, you would clear the platform in its entirety and probably fall to certain doom. If you were to roll a check of 33 (let's say it's a natural 20 with a +13 bonus, however), by the rules, you would not jump 33 feet, because you are not trying to clear a 33-foot jump. You are instead trying to clear a 15-foot jump. That is the DC you are trying to beat. Anything beyond 15 simply determines the degree of your success (such as how, for example, if you are jumping untrained, such as a STR 16 Fighter with no ranks being assisted by the Jump spell of a 1st-level Wizard, beating the DC by 5 or more ensures that you land on your feet instead of falling prone--it does not determine how much further than the base distance you successfully jump). The check result simply determines the degree of success that you have at beating the static DC--not "total distance of jump"--unless the express purpose of jumping is to jump as far as you can.

Shattering the headstone because you accidentally applied "too much strength" (which is absurd, because the same amount of strength is applied anyway) is the same as telling somebody that they accidentally jumped more than ten feet more than they needed to because you applied "too much jump" (which is absurd, because the distance needed to beat the jump is known; the measure beyond that point is how much control one has over the jump). Or that your Bluff check is so good that it beats your capacity to defeat it with your own Sense Motive check, so you believe your own lie. Or...

[Socratov]

The d20 Strength check is not a measure of "how much strength do you use"; it's a measure of "how well do you apply your strength". Your STR score is not a variable number when you need to roll it for a d20 check: you have the exact same STR modifier, carrying capacity, and all other effects dependent on your STR score whether you roll a 1 or a 20 or any number in-between; it's how efficiently your STR is being applied that is being measured with a d20 roll (with a higher number always being objectively better than a lower number, because it's the degree of success being measured, not the amount of force being applied).
well, by applying your strength more efficiently you basically apply more strength, YMMV...

Consider this example. Tordek, the Half-Orc Barbarian (PHB), STR 17, tries to make a Strength check on a good door (DC18). He rolls a 5, for a total result of 8, and fails to break the door. Mailee, the Elf Wizard (PHB again), STR 8, decides she can do it better, and STR checks the door. She rolls a 20, for a total result of 19, and succeeds in breaking down the door. Did Mailee apply more strength on the door than Tordek? Of course not; Mailee does not have more Strength. She did, however, apply the strength she had better, which gave her a greater degree of success than Tordek. How, exactly, this is measured depends on what would determine success and failure; perhaps Tordek threw his (significantly greater) weight into the door nearer the hinges, whereas Mailee applied her strength much closer to the handle, which caused the door to break at the point of least resistance (the mechanical components of the handle, or the shoddy wooden bar holding it together).
well, this has been done in the Gamer's films... Quite funnily and lampshaded even :smallbiggrin:

Look at how this dichotomy is represented in skill checks. The Jump skill represents, as a matter of skill DCs, exactly how far you jump with a single jump (5 feet for every 5 points on the check result); however, when making a Jump check to cross a chasm or something of the equivalent, you only need meet the DC in order to successfully jump to the other end--it doesn't actually measure the distance you jump unless you are physically trying to jump further than the minimum distance. Suppose, for example, that the "other end" is a 10'x10' platform. The DC to cross the chasm is 15, since it's a 15-foot jump. Regardless of how far you can actually jump, this is the number you are trying to beat. If you were to jump more than 25 feet, for whatever reason, you would clear the platform in its entirety and probably fall to certain doom. If you were to roll a check of 33 (let's say it's a natural 20 with a +13 bonus, however), by the rules, you would not jump 33 feet, because you are not trying to clear a 33-foot jump. You are instead trying to clear a 15-foot jump. That is the DC you are trying to beat. Anything beyond 15 simply determines the degree of your success (such as how, for example, if you are jumping untrained, such as a STR 16 Fighter with no ranks being assisted by the Jump spell of a 1st-level Wizard, beating the DC by 5 or more ensures that you land on your feet instead of falling prone--it does not determine how much further than the base distance you successfully jump). The check result simply determines the degree of success that you have at beating the static DC--not "total distance of jump"--unless the express purpose of jumping is to jump as far as you can.
well, just in case novody picked up on it and I have been too subtle on it, skills are represented ridiculously. Not only can they be boosted in weird ways (even when someone supports you like a cheerleader singing about what you have to do). they also have represent a matter of how well you are able to carry out a certain strick (let's call it that for the time being). If the trick is jumping a certain distance (say 15 ft.), and you reach an astronomically high check you jumped 15 feet very well... That aside, I'd certainly warn the player for overjumping and to account for it in some way (possibly in a second roll %roll for judging the distance in a right way).

Shattering the headstone because you accidentally applied "too much strength" (which is absurd, because the same amount of strength is applied anyway) is the same as telling somebody that they accidentally jumped more than ten feet more than they needed to because you applied "too much jump" (which is absurd, because the distance needed to beat the jump is known; the measure beyond that point is how much control one has over the jump). Or that your Bluff check is so good that it beats your capacity to defeat it with your own Sense Motive check, so you believe your own lie. Or...
I'd actually like this to happen in play from time to time... Not only would it make play more interesting and boost roleplay, but it could just invoke all rules of cool, funny, awesone, etc.

And it would be a good reason to take Sense Motive (an underrated skill IMO)

[SowZ]

Totally depends on what the player tried to do. If the player said, "I try and smash the headstone," then yes, a 20 means he smashes it grandly and destroys the headstone. If he said, "I try and remove the gem," 20 represents his ability to remove the gem, not destroy the scenery.

If I were the player, I would have asked if I could use a dex check. Regardless, if he was trying to remove the orb then his roll should represent how well he removes it, (which would mean using the right amount of strength, not the most.) A failed roll could actually mean he uses TOO much strength and breaks it. It means he failed at the task, not that he was weaker.

Let me give an example. If a player were making a throw check to throw a stone onto an island in the middle of the sea, a roll of a 20 should mean he is successful and hits the island. Not that he threw too hard and overshot the island.

[Xaragos]

The d20 Strength check is not a measure of "how much strength do you use"; it's a measure of "how well do you apply your strength". Your STR score is not a variable number when you need to roll it for a d20 check: you have the exact same STR modifier, carrying capacity, and all other effects dependent on your STR score whether you roll a 1 or a 20 or any number in-between; it's how efficiently your STR is being applied that is being measured with a d20 roll (with a higher number always being objectively better than a lower number, because it's the degree of success being measured, not the amount of force being applied).

Consider this example. Tordek, the Half-Orc Barbarian (PHB), STR 17, tries to make a Strength check on a good door (DC18). He rolls a 5, for a total result of 8, and fails to break the door. Mailee, the Elf Wizard (PHB again), STR 8, decides she can do it better, and STR checks the door. She rolls a 20, for a total result of 19, and succeeds in breaking down the door. Did Mailee apply more strength on the door than Tordek? Of course not; Mailee does not have more Strength. She did, however, apply the strength she had better, which gave her a greater degree of success than Tordek. How, exactly, this is measured depends on what would determine success and failure; perhaps Tordek threw his (significantly greater) weight into the door nearer the hinges, whereas Mailee applied her strength much closer to the handle, which caused the door to break at the point of least resistance (the mechanical components of the handle, or the shoddy wooden bar holding it together).

Look at how this dichotomy is represented in skill checks. The Jump skill represents, as a matter of skill DCs, exactly how far you jump with a single jump (5 feet for every 5 points on the check result); however, when making a Jump check to cross a chasm or something of the equivalent, you only need meet the DC in order to successfully jump to the other end--it doesn't actually measure the distance you jump unless you are physically trying to jump further than the minimum distance. Suppose, for example, that the "other end" is a 10'x10' platform. The DC to cross the chasm is 15, since it's a 15-foot jump. Regardless of how far you can actually jump, this is the number you are trying to beat. If you were to jump more than 25 feet, for whatever reason, you would clear the platform in its entirety and probably fall to certain doom. If you were to roll a check of 33 (let's say it's a natural 20 with a +13 bonus, however), by the rules, you would not jump 33 feet, because you are not trying to clear a 33-foot jump. You are instead trying to clear a 15-foot jump. That is the DC you are trying to beat. Anything beyond 15 simply determines the degree of your success (such as how, for example, if you are jumping untrained, such as a STR 16 Fighter with no ranks being assisted by the Jump spell of a 1st-level Wizard, beating the DC by 5 or more ensures that you land on your feet instead of falling prone--it does not determine how much further than the base distance you successfully jump). The check result simply determines the degree of success that you have at beating the static DC--not "total distance of jump"--unless the express purpose of jumping is to jump as far as you can.

Shattering the headstone because you accidentally applied "too much strength" (which is absurd, because the same amount of strength is applied anyway) is the same as telling somebody that they accidentally jumped more than ten feet more than they needed to because you applied "too much jump" (which is absurd, because the distance needed to beat the jump is known; the measure beyond that point is how much control one has over the jump). Or that your Bluff check is so good that it beats your capacity to defeat it with your own Sense Motive check, so you believe your own lie. Or...

This * 100000.

Spot on in my opinion. Anyone can add flavor or fluff and house rule ...tweak...what have you a situation but this I think is the central premise of the DnD D20 system. Adding in reflex saves or percentage dice rolls to account for other things is ok, but higher should be better not worse.

[Lonely Tylenol]

well, by applying your strength more efficiently you basically apply more strength, YMMV...

I can twist the lid on that pickle jar as hard as I damn well please, but unless I'm twisting it in the right direction...


well, just in case novody picked up on it and I have been too subtle on it, skills are represented ridiculously. Not only can they be boosted in weird ways (even when someone supports you like a cheerleader singing about what you have to do). they also have represent a matter of how well you are able to carry out a certain strick (let's call it that for the time being). If the trick is jumping a certain distance (say 15 ft.), and you reach an astronomically high check you jumped 15 feet very well... That aside, I'd certainly warn the player for overjumping and to account for it in some way (possibly in a second roll %roll for judging the distance in a right way).

I think that the last sentence is a more ridiculous representation of skills than anything D&D has spit out, which at least can be justified "because magic". If a player needs to worry about his Jump skill being too high to jump a fixed, smaller distance, then what you are basically doing is saying that the player has a minimum distance, measured in feet, beneath which he is incapable of jumping. If a Thri-Kreen Barbarian (trading Ride for Tumble) has a total Jump modifier of +45, and he needs to clear that 15-foot chasm, you can't tell him, "oh, I'm sorry, but taking ten, you accidentally clear the platform by... (Checks for bonuses) ...40 feet. Unfortunate."

If a player can only jump the maximum distance their Jump check tells them they can jump, then an untrained Thri-Kreen cannot jump less than 15 feet, standing still, because they cannot roll below a 30. And that is ridiculous.


I'd actually like this to happen in play from time to time... Not only would it make play more interesting and boost roleplay, but it could just invoke all rules of cool, funny, awesone, etc.

And it would be a good reason to take Sense Motive (an underrated skill IMO)

I can't be blamed if you become the first DM to suffer the indignity of being buried under your own books.

[Socratov]

This * 100000.

Spot on in my opinion. Anyone can add flavor or fluff and house rule ...tweak...what have you a situation but this I think is the central premise of the DnD D20 system. Adding in reflex saves or percentage dice rolls to account for other things is ok, but higher should be better not worse.

well, normally speaking, yes. Though Abilitychecks are iffy to begin with they are the "if anything isn't represented in a skill or other described roll" fix, along with the basic applications of said ability. For strength it's the application of force which means higher result=better application of brute force=> more force out of your strength score.

Grandted, a warning on the brittleness of the headstone could have been a nice thing...

this situation, if anything, is best compared to catching pokemon: if you try to whittle down the pokemon's health and crit wiping all his hp away you can't catch it, while more damage is usually better.

My saying is that the general rule is higher number rolled == better, but exceptions do exist.

[Ashtagon]

well, normally speaking, yes. Though Abilitychecks are iffy to begin with they are the "if anything isn't represented in a skill or other described roll" fix, along with the basic applications of said ability. For strength it's the application of force which means higher result=better application of brute force=> more force out of your strength score.

Grandted, a warning on the brittleness of the headstone could have been a nice thing...

this situation, if anything, is best compared to catching pokemon: if you try to whittle down the pokemon's health and crit wiping all his hp away you can't catch it, while more damage is usually better.

My saying is that the general rule is higher number rolled == better, but exceptions do exist.

Disagree. Even for Strength, higher roll doesn't mean "more force". It means "more desirable (in terms of stated goals) outcome from applying force". A thri-kreen doesn't overjump, and an ogre doesn't overbreak.

[Strategos]

Okay, let's take a few steps back shall we? Our Rogue rolled a strength check to pry loose the ruby? Let's see what the Player's Handbook has to say about ability checks:



Sometimes a character tries to do something to which no specific
skill really applies. In these cases, you make an ability check. An
ability check is a roll of 1d20 plus the appropriate ability modifier.
Essentially, you’re making an untrained skill check. The DM assigns
a Difficulty Class, or sets up an opposed check when two characters
are engaged in a contest using one ability score or another. The
initiative check in combat, for example, is essentially a Dexterity
check. The character who rolls highest goes first.

The underlining is mine. So, now we should go and look at the Untrained Skill Checks rules:



Generally, if your character attempts to use a skill he or she does not
possess, you make a skill check as normal. The skill modifier doesn’t
have a skill rank added in because the character has no ranks in the
skill. Any other applicable modifiers, such as the modifier for the
skill’s key ability, are applied to the check.

Again, the underlining is mine. An ability check is an untrained skill check which follows the rules as normal for skill checks. So let's check what the Player's Handbook has to say about skill checks:



To make a skill check, roll 1d20 and add your character’s skill
modifier for that skill. The skill modifier incorporates the character’s
ranks in that skill and the ability modifier for that skill’s key ability,
plus any other miscellaneous modifiers that may apply, including
racial bonuses and armor check penalties. The higher the result, the
better. Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of
20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is
not an automatic failure.

Underlines are once again mine. The text does say that a natural twenty is not always a success and a natural one is not always a failure, but it follows immediately after the sentance saying that a higher result is better than a lower result. Had you simply used a DC Chart like one of the ones suggested in the thread, with the lower successes triggering the ghoul, it wouldn't have been problem. But, as it stands, I agree with the player here that it was a bit of a **** move.

[The Trickster]

I want to pick up my computer, I would roll a STR check (dc 5...lets pretend I am wimpy). I hope I don't roll a 20, otherwise I might launch it to the ceiling! :smalltongue:

In all serious, since this was a game where the player knew how the OP ran his game, I would say "no" to this being a **** move.

Remember in that cartoon when the coyote tried to push an anvil off the side of the cliff, failed to do so, then got so angry he mangaged to pull it off, and fell off with it? He rolled a 20 STR check (maybe even channeling his inner barbarian rage!)

[Surfnerd]

LOL!!! Nerd Rage : Don't nat20 your computer thru the ceiling.:smallbiggrin:

I feel in a horror game you could have drawn out the scene by requiring multiple rolls. Assuming you continue to use strength checks or at least allow them as an option to remove items, you could hint at possible outcomes at each failure to bend, break or lift something or just have it breaking be the only outcome of the situation.

In the OP example,

Player 1"I want to pry those gems free"
GM"Okay how?"
Player 1"Can I grab them I just want to yank them free"
GM"heh heh mmmmm.... yes... You will need to roll a strength check and climb onto the sarcophagus"
Player 1"I jump up there and starting prying"
Player 2"Maybe I could finesse them out"
Player 1"I rolled a 20, I don't think you need to finesse them pal I got this"
GM "As you stand atop the sarcophagus and yank on the gems, the headstone becomes unbalanced and begins to fall toward you. Roll a reflex save"
Player 1"What I rolled a 20!!!!"
Player 2"Yeah on a damn strength check, I said I could have finessed them out!"
Player 1"I got a 9"
GM -rolling dice-"Okay you take 3pts of damage and are prone on the back of the sarcophagus. The sound of the crash echoes still as the cloud of dust lingers around the former resting place of the headstone. As the dust begins to settles it appears the headstone caved in the head portion of the sarcophagus. PLAYER 2 roll Listen......all players roll for initiative"


Let the players police each other. Just play up the consequences of the smasher in a horror setting. If hes brash let those actions have severe consequences. It helps if you establish certain aspects of the graveyard as they go thru it. Everything is deteriorating and crumbling, its really quiet, the tombs echo, etc.....

Perhaps in an earlier tomb they slid a sarcophagus open. Describe the sound as grating, loud and echoing throughout the chamber. When the echoing stops have the players roll listen checks.....wait.... consult notes.... organize said notes.... roll dice.... look up at players.... then ask them what they do next. If you can build that sense of drama and tension in the group, the brash smasher might think twice about his actions of yanking and breaking. But if you just keep throwing rules curveballs at them in attempt to add horror imho its just going to frustrate the players as they feel like they can't control how they interact with the situation.

If you make it known to the whole group that pulling the sword out of the hand of the sarcophagus statue caves in the top, lets out a ghoul and echoes throughout the complex; perhaps the other players will convince him a more subtle approach is necessary. Also the sounds of combat may attract unwanted attention also. If the players are yelling and screaming and smashing while they fight just throw a couple more ghouls at the end of the hall shambling toward them.

In a recent campaign of mine, the players inadvertently released a bunch of necrotic energy sealed beneath a tomb and raised an army of weak and uncontrolled undead on the country side. They couldn't stop the tide and had to flee the scene. Now every once and awhile I have a group of those undead show up further from the temple for the players to deal with and rumors of villages being overrun in the area etc.... just to remind them of their failure. Its on their to do list, but they are afraid of returning.

[Trebloc]

To the OP:
Do you use similar reasoning for other ability checks? Have a PC make an INT check and if they roll too well, what happens? WIS check? DEX check?

Do you use the same reasoning for all rolls? If you beat your opponents AC by 2 you hit, if you beat it by 10 you not only hit, but you slice through and hit your ally who was flanking the baddie?

How about skill checks? If you get a 15 on Tumble you nimbly dance away, but if you roll at 20 you....nimbly dance away too well?

Asked to make that FORT save? 15 is ok. If a player gets a 20, does something negative happen with that success?

Yes, I think it was a jerk move. A player is being punished for being able to do a task too well.

You listed 14 & less as simply being a failure. In that regard, the STR6 gnome wizard would have been the safer choice to getting the ruby than the STR26 Fighter, because the wizard may fail quite alot, but they won't break the headstone.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Come on! it's basically a variation of this trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoesNotKnowHisOwnStrength). :smallwink:

Did you intend this as a defense of the OP? If so, it's ironic that the second paragraph says the trope doesn't apply to very strong normies.

"Normally, it only happens to folks who gain Super Strength, not characters born with it and who had it all their life. After all, in real life an Olympic athlete that can lift several times his own weight can also pick up a caterpillar without squishing it and it would create all sorts of Fridge Logic to see a character with long-established super strength and constantly smashing plates or bottles and not wonder how they ever managed to feed themselves without learning how to control their power."

[Xerxus]

Lets take another skill check. Namely survival. If you use survival to track down a foe, you say that you want to find him. So a success means that you get what you want, namely finding the foe. Only in doing so, you end up in a fight which you can't handle, which leaves you dead.

So lets say the tracker rolled a natural 20. This should always be a good thing, no? The DM knows it's a bad thing to succeed, so according to the logic that a high result is always a good thing, the DM should not allow the player to succeed in his tracking. But you see, that is not what they player wants, and this would be called a **** move since the player knows that he should have succeeded with such a high roll. There are no degrees of success here, either you track the foe down or you don't.

In this case, the DM chose to let a very high strength check represent the amount of force applied. I don't see the issue, since 20 isn't an autosuccess on skill/ability checks and should only represent the degree to which the player is able to apply the skill represented - a high knowledge skill check means that you know more, a high survival check means that you are able to forage more food, a high diplomacy check means that you are more pleasant etc. So why shouldn't a high strength check be allowed to mean more strength applied?

In a fantasy horror game, shouldn't you be held responsible for choosing the correct course of action, instead of just being able to rely on high results on your d20? Isn't it a deeper game if instead of relying on your skill modifier, you have to rely on your wits and choosing the correct course of action (ie realizing when a high result is only beneficial). A d20 is only a tool for the DM to apply as he sees fit anyway.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Lets take another skill check. Namely survival. If you use survival to track down a foe, you say that you want to find him. So a success means that you get what you want, namely finding the foe. Only in doing so, you end up in a fight which you can't handle, which leaves you dead.

So lets say the tracker rolled a natural 20. This should always be a good thing, no? The DM knows it's a bad thing to succeed, so according to the logic that a high result is always a good thing, the DM should not allow the player to succeed in his tracking. But you see, that is not what they player wants, and this would be called a **** move since the player knows that he should have succeeded with such a high roll. There are no degrees of success here, either you track the foe down or you don't.

Just like the scenario of critting on an attack and gibbing someone you shouldn't have attacked due to mistaken identity. A high roll should be better from the player/character's immediate perspective. Critting on the attack (as opposed to missing) was "good" because you wanted to attack and deal damage, tracking down a guy (as opposed to not tracking the guy or just tracking far enough to get a few clues) that will tpk your party is good because you were trying to track them, knocking a stone over onto yourself and unleashing a monster is not a good thing (compared to getting the gem scot free).

If the DM want's to be nice, and let 20's be unequivocally good, the nat 20 on a track check that making would be bad in the long run; then let them track their target for awhile before collecting some useful clues and getting some hint that this guy is too much to handle. That's irrelevant though, the important thing is immediate results at the thing they were trying to do.

[Xerxus]

Just like the scenario of critting on an attack and gibbing someone you shouldn't have attacked due to mistaken identity. A high roll should be better from the player/character's immediate perspective. Critting on the attack (as opposed to missing) was "good" because you wanted to attack and deal damage, tracking down a guy (as opposed to not tracking the guy or just tracking far enough to get a few clues) that will tpk your party is good because you were trying to track them, knocking a stone over onto yourself and unleashing a monster is not a good thing (compared to getting the gem scot free).

If the DM want's to be nice, and let 20's be unequivocally good, the nat 20 on a track check that making would be bad in the long run; then let them track their target for awhile before collecting some useful clues and getting some hint that this guy is too much to handle. That's irrelevant though, the important thing is immediate results at the thing they were trying to do.

So despite the fact that they have no idea that prying the headstone loose is a bad thing, he should assume that the character knows it and make sure that he takes precautions to prevent it. The argument comes after the fact - no one would have complained if the headstone had come loose with no ill effect so that argument only applies if he was actively making sure that he was using exactly the right amount of force. Which he wasn't.

[Darius Kane]

Which he wasn't.
How do you know?

[Xerxus]

How do you know?

Because I'm sure the initial post would have mentioned such an overwhelming factor.

[Darius Kane]

Such things are kinda assumed. It's common sense, really.

[Xerxus]

What? Trying the pull out the jewel lodged in the sarcophagus with moderation?

As he stated, it's a fantasy horror, if the DM wants them to phrase their actions wish-style then that's up to him. There was even a precedent in the very same campaign. So I guess it shouldn't have been assumed.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

So despite the fact that they have no idea that prying the headstone loose is a bad thing, he should assume that the character knows it and make sure that he takes precautions to prevent it. The argument comes after the fact - no one would have complained if the headstone had come loose with no ill effect so that argument only applies if he was actively making sure that he was using exactly the right amount of force. Which he wasn't.

Whether by luck, common sense, intelligence or skill it should be assumed things are being done with moderate competence, at least if the rolls are high.

Back to specifics on strength checks if a 15 points worth of check would pop the gem out and you got a 20 then you should achieve the task easily rather than sloppily. As I said earlier; logicaly you would attempt to pop it out with only wrist action first (maximum finesse, minimum strength), then brace your arm (middle way), then put knee or hip into the stone or maybe stab downward with the blade then try to pull the handle down and forward (this is when your being stupid, frustrated, using poor judgement, getting a poor roll). The weaker you are relative to the task the more likely you are to give up finesse to maximize power, that's when you hurt yourself.

[Xerxus]

That's your interpretation, not the RAW.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

That's your interpretation, not the RAW.

Is anyone talking about RAW? I thought we were discussing the basic assumptions of the system?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Lets take another skill check. Namely survival. If you use survival to track down a foe, you say that you want to find him. So a success means that you get what you want, namely finding the foe. Only in doing so, you end up in a fight which you can't handle, which leaves you dead.

So lets say the tracker rolled a natural 20. This should always be a good thing, no? The DM knows it's a bad thing to succeed, so according to the logic that a high result is always a good thing, the DM should not allow the player to succeed in his tracking. But you see, that is not what they player wants, and this would be called a **** move since the player knows that he should have succeeded with such a high roll. There are no degrees of success here, either you track the foe down or you don't.

In this case, the DM chose to let a very high strength check represent the amount of force applied. I don't see the issue, since 20 isn't an autosuccess on skill/ability checks and should only represent the degree to which the player is able to apply the skill represented - a high knowledge skill check means that you know more, a high survival check means that you are able to forage more food, a high diplomacy check means that you are more pleasant etc. So why shouldn't a high strength check be allowed to mean more strength applied?

In a fantasy horror game, shouldn't you be held responsible for choosing the correct course of action, instead of just being able to rely on high results on your d20? Isn't it a deeper game if instead of relying on your skill modifier, you have to rely on your wits and choosing the correct course of action (ie realizing when a high result is only beneficial). A d20 is only a tool for the DM to apply as he sees fit anyway.
With a result this good, I would say "you track down your enemy, and have the drop on him", and then give them room to determine whether they were outmatched.

[Xerxus]

With a result this good, I would say "you track down your enemy, and have the drop on him", and then give them room to determine whether they were outmatched.

Which could also be interpreted as making it even easier for the players to commit TPK, since it would seem like a more favorable position. And to get the drop I would call stealth.

[Xerxus]

Is anyone talking about RAW? I thought we were discussing the basic assumptions of the system?

The basic assumptions of the system is the RAW. The rest is up to the DM. Or does the DM not decide what a successful skill check ultimately does?

[Darius Kane]

What? Trying the pull out the jewel lodged in the sarcophagus with moderation?
Um, yeah? You wouldn't want to injure yourself or damage the jewel, now would you?

[Hand_of_Vecna]

The basic assumptions of the system is the RAW. The rest is up to the DM. Or does the DM not decide what a successful skill check ultimately does?

What I thought this thread was about, was a DM questioning whether the outcomes he assigned to various check results were "fair".

A lot of things can enter the "fairness" of a ruling; RAW, RAI, player assumptions, metagame concerns, logic, etc.

Punishing players for not describing their characters actions in detail and trusting that character skill will get them a favorable result if they roll high is certainly one way to play the game.

[Xerxus]

Um, yeah? You wouldn't want to injure yourself or damage the jewel, now would you?

And you wouldn't want to damage the sarcophagus either! Which is why you say that you try to pull it out carefully.

[Axier]

While a natural 20 roll on a die is commonly referred to as a critical success, a critical success does not NORMALLY BY RAW constitute perfect success.

Although, it is a common house rule that almost always applies to every game just about, so what I would do from here is explain that A) RAW it isn't an auto-win, and B) I will be continually doing this for the rest of the campaign.

In the future, you should, due to common misconception, inform your players of your natural 20 policy, at the beginning of the campaign.

Personal note, not a bad move in my mind, especially given the setting.

[Darius Kane]

And you wouldn't want to damage the sarcophagus either! Which is why you say that you try to pull it out carefully.
Again, it's common sense.

[Gildedragon]

The problem isn't actions have consequences, rather the possibility of succeeding so hard one fails.
Xerxus's tracking example is a poor rebuttal of the notion of higher=better as tracking is not all that is involved in following and finding the subjects. A successful track check gives you number and race. Players can then chose to sneak, try to set up an ambush, and even in case of running into a foe that outmatches them, running away.
In this case the poor result was inevitable, and arbitrary; without so much as a save or a spot check to let them avoid the danger.
A player ought not to be able to overshoot with skills becuse buffs exist, meaning that players are penalized for helping each other (why help the rougue flank when a crit on their part gets one skewered) and doubly penalized for using resources (by expending and failing because of the buff). And secondly because higher stats exist, and making it so that a high roll can -expletive- one over means that some players will be invariably -expletive-ed over.
It was a poor move with a noble intent (increasing tension).
If it is possible to overshoot give the players several tries with gradual warnings to have them get into describing their actions.

[Henryj]

You should consider that maybe your players have the impression that they can't really interact with decorative elements that you describe in the scene, since it happened twice and they didn't get what they wanted even with high rolls.. if it's not the case, talk to them, if it is the case, simply don't put this stuff (i tell you that because i saw a lot of times masters that put a decorative element, even worthless, and block their players from taking it only because it was not the purpose of the element itself)

Said that i think that 20 is always good, sometimes it's a success, sometimes it's not, but should be always better than a lower roll..

The combat exemples that has negative consequences due to a critical hit on a target that i wanted only to harm, let me think 2 things:
1: First is that an attack for letal damage is mean to kill indipendently from what the player want to do (if i don't want to kill i use non letal, and i don't risk), a 20 is still the best outcome for the action that i have taken (using an action that is meant to kill)

2: There are two kind of situation, it seems. When i want to make the best that i can, and when i want to pass a dc test.
Since the attack has no dc, it can't be used only in first "mode"

It mean that if i have to jump in a jump contest, i'll try to make my best, and i will calculate my jump distance using my result.
If i have to jump a pit, let say dc 10, if i make 11 or 36, i'm still successful equally.

It mean, in the "ruby and ghoul" scenario: the Dc to take the stone is 18?
If i make 18 or 20 or 25, i reach my goal taking the stone (the master decide what ability to use, but the action goal does not change)
One thing is saying that if i fail X happens, in i fail of 5 or more Y happens.. but for passing the test it does not make sense in the 3.x sistem...



Lets take another skill check. Namely survival. If you use survival to track down a foe, you say that you want to find him. So a success means that you get what you want, namely finding the foe. Only in doing so, you end up in a fight which you can't handle, which leaves you dead.

So lets say the tracker rolled a natural 20. This should always be a good thing, no? The DM knows it's a bad thing to succeed, so according to the logic that a high result is always a good thing, the DM should not allow the player to succeed in his tracking.

That's not true, rolling a natural 20 and tracking the enemy is good (better than not), rushing into bad guy is bad, but that's a players decision.
tracking does not mean to walk straight without watching what you have in front of you... (using track should generally prevent an ambush)

By the way it's still not the same thing as the ruby situation.. it would fit if removing the ruby triggered the ghoul (in that case there would be no question)
It would fit more if:
Tracking check from 16-18: Players find the foe, unaware
Above 18: Players find the foe, but they stumble upon him


But you see, that is not what they player wants, and this would be called a **** move since the player knows that he should have succeeded with such a high roll. There are no degrees of success here, either you track the foe down or you don't.

Exactly, there are no degrees, either you succeed in what you want to do, or not.
But negative stuff can't happend because you succeed too well... either bad thing happend because you succeed or you fail..
Even the Bad thing happend succeeding or bad thing happend failing too much can be (it's expected).. but bad thing happend because you succeed to well, otherwise everything fine?


In this case, the DM chose to let a very high strength check represent the amount of force applied. I don't see the issue, since 20 isn't an autosuccess on skill/ability checks and should only represent the degree to which the player is able to apply the skill represented - a high knowledge skill check means that you know more, a high survival check means that you are able to forage more food, a high diplomacy check means that you are more pleasant etc. So why shouldn't a high strength check be allowed to mean more strength applied?

Able to apply, Able.
It mean that i'm able to apply that skill or ability in the best way the situation requires, as underlined with the "too much jump" situation of a thri-kreen..
If i have an absurd listen score, and i make a 20 to hear a conversation behind a door (dc 6, 3m+wooden door), you can't say that i hear every conversation in the building, so i really don't get what the guys behind the door was saiyng because of the chaos...


In a fantasy horror game, shouldn't you be held responsible for choosing the correct course of action, instead of just being able to rely on high results on your d20? Isn't it a deeper game if instead of relying on your skill modifier, you have to rely on your wits and choosing the correct course of action (ie realizing when a high result is only beneficial). A d20 is only a tool for the DM to apply as he sees fit anyway.

It should be as you say, this mean that i will activate the blood golem (Ghoul in this case) opening the sarcophagus without searching traps.. (bad choise) Not because i succeed too much and therefore fail...

[Xerxus]

The problem isn't actions have consequences, rather the possibility of succeeding so hard one fails.
Xerxus's tracking example is a poor rebuttal of the notion of higher=better as tracking is not all that is involved in following and finding the subjects. A successful track check gives you number and race. Players can then chose to sneak, try to set up an ambush, and even in case of running into a foe that outmatches them, running away.
In this case the poor result was inevitable, and arbitrary; without so much as a save or a spot check to let them avoid the danger.
A player ought not to be able to overshoot with skills becuse buffs exist, meaning that players are penalized for helping each other (why help the rougue flank when a crit on their part gets one skewered) and doubly penalized for using resources (by expending and failing because of the buff). And secondly because higher stats exist, and making it so that a high roll can -expletive- one over means that some players will be invariably -expletive-ed over.
It was a poor move with a noble intent (increasing tension).
If it is possible to overshoot give the players several tries with gradual warnings to have them get into describing their actions.

The warning check was their player realizing prior to doing it that it was a bad idea to mess with sarcophagi in a crypt (or whereever).

[Rogue Shadows]

The best DM's are just a little sadistic. This falls well within that, so, no, I would not call this a "****" move.

Me, if I was that player, would see the ghoul popping out of the sarcophagus and think to myself "Sweet! XP!"

[Xenogears]

Which could also be interpreted as making it even easier for the players to commit TPK, since it would seem like a more favorable position. And to get the drop I would call stealth.

The point shouldn't be that a high roll results in a good consequence but that their intended action should go accordingly.

If you get a good roll on Jump you land where you intended to.
If you get a good Climb roll you make progress on your climb.
If you get a good Open Lock roll you pick the lock.

It doesn't matter if where you wanted to land was a tiger pit covered by a tarp, if an angry Dragon is at the top of the mountain, or if the lock opened the door to Hell. The end result isn't the point. The point is that the action they are attempting goes good.

They don't overjump the pit, they don't climb so fast they fall, and they don't pick the lock so hard it shatters or any other nonsense like that.

You are intentionally misinterpreting everyone else's position in order to make their position seem weaker (also known as a Strawman Fallacy although I usually dislike using fallacies as an argument).

No one is saying that the result should always be good in the end. They are saying that your intended action should be performed better if you roll high (whether the action is a smart option or not is completely irrelevant).

[Lonely Tylenol]

Lets take another skill check. Namely survival. If you use survival to track down a foe, you say that you want to find him. So a success means that you get what you want, namely finding the foe. Only in doing so, you end up in a fight which you can't handle, which leaves you dead.

So lets say the tracker rolled a natural 20. This should always be a good thing, no? The DM knows it's a bad thing to succeed, so according to the logic that a high result is always a good thing, the DM should not allow the player to succeed in his tracking. But you see, that is not what they player wants, and this would be called a **** move since the player knows that he should have succeeded with such a high roll. There are no degrees of success here, either you track the foe down or you don't.

Here's where the analogy fails: the relative power level of the person being tracked is independent of your Survival (or Gather Information, in the case of Urban Tracking) result. It would be closer to the OP's situation if, say, the person you were tracking was stronger because you rolled a high Survival result.

Note how, even in your example to the contrary, a higher check result still means a higher degree of success at the skill you are applying it to. The negative consequences of finding somebody considerably stronger than you (again, independent of the skill's parameters) have absolutely no bearing on the success of your check, which in your example, you still do better at the higher you roll.

The same is true for the attack roll situation. The argument here--that confirming a critical in a situation where you meant to take somebody alive, and the resultant damage accidentally killing them--is also presenting a false dichotomy. The reason? You are doing lethal damage to your target--and lethal damage is intended to kill. If you meant to deal damage to your target so as to incapacitate them without killing them, there's a term for that: it's called doing nonlethal damage. It's really quite easy to do, and there are a lot of resources to do it with: you could use the Merciful weapon property (+1 modifier), or a sap (which costs 1gp), or an unarmed strike (those you get for free), or if you find yourself devoid of nonlethal weapons and appendages, you can suck it up and take the -4 penalty to hit.

If you're doing lethal damage, though? You're aiming to kill--and, surprise surprise, a natural 20 does that better than any other result on the die (either by enabling the critical or guaranteeing a hit). Just like how, if you were doing nonlethal damage, a natural 20 would do it better than any other result. It would, again, be closer to the OP's example if, when you rolled a critical hit, you swung that axe so hard that you whiffed completely, and missed outright (or accidentally hit an ally instead!). Which is patently absurd.

None of this deviates from the fact that, in both of these scenarios, you are doing the thing you intended to do better by rolling higher. You aren't somehow less confident at finding somebody because you are innately better at tracking; instead, you find them exactly as well as you should have, being the master tracker that you are, and then died because you failed your Common Sense check and didn't run (or just because you suck at everything else--or because you made a lot of low rolls that your Survival check had no bearing on). You aren't somehow less able to stick the pointy end of your weapon into things because you are innately better at sticking the pointy end of your weapon into things; you accidentally killed someone you didn't want to kill, because apparently, the character in question is a foolish man-child with no real grasp of consequences, and didn't understand that sticking the pointy end of your weapon into things until they fall over kills them, and not once in the entirety of this "pursue and subdue" mission and the ensuing combat did it occur to him to use the flat of his blade instead. None of this has any bearing whatsoever on how the core mechanics of the game work; if anything, they've demonstrated how poor player decision can lead to poor consequences--a truism no matter the system you use, and totally independent of any rules therein.


That's your interpretation, not the RAW.

The RAW? Oh, you mean this (www.d20srd.org/SRD/skills/usingSkills.htm#difficultyClas)?


Difficulty Class
Some checks are made against a Difficulty Class (DC). The DC is a number (set using the skill rules as a guideline) that you must score as a result on your skill check in order to succeed.

Or this?


Using Skills
When your character uses a skill, you make a skill check to see how well he or she does. The higher the result of the skill check, the better. Based on the circumstances, your result must match or beat a particular number (a DC or the result of an opposed skill check) for the check to be successful. The harder the task, the higher the number you need to roll.

Believe it or not, the basic assumptions of the game--such as "high rolls are good"--actually have a solid foundational reasoning, both in the actual rule sets and in the tenets and other principles that lead to, and follow from, them. You can call it RAW, RAI, RACSD, common sense in general, Rule of Cool, Rule of Fun, whatever--barring fringe cases totally not representative of the gaming majority or the company's target market, none of these things are incongruous.

In short, it is assumed that the game works this way because this is how the game works. Unless a hard rewrite of the edition occurs, this will always be true.

[The Trickster]

The same is true for the attack roll situation. The argument here--that confirming a critical in a situation where you meant to take somebody alive, and the resultant damage accidentally killing them--is also presenting a false dichotomy. The reason? You are doing lethal damage to your target--and lethal damage is intended to kill. If you meant to deal damage to your target so as to incapacitate them without killing them, there's a term for that: it's called doing nonlethal damage. It's really quite easy to do, and there are a lot of resources to do it with: you could use the Merciful weapon property (+1 modifier), or a sap (which costs 1gp), or an unarmed strike (those you get for free), or if you find yourself devoid of nonlethal weapons and appendages, you can suck it up and take the -4 penalty to hit.

Maybe I'm wrong, but can't you still kill someone with nonlethal damage? For example, if a wizard has 10 health and takes 30 nonlethal damage, you still die because the excess damage carries over to lethal? Just sayin'.

I remember a game I played where I played and evil ranger and was trapped in a maze dungeon thing, and I made an intimidate check against an older gentleman who lived inside the place, in order to find the exit. I rolled a 20; The DM ruled I scared the old man and gave him a heart attack. Was I a little upset? Ohhhh yeah, but the DM made it clear that the game was suppose to be an abnormal game where things like that can happen. I think thats the point here. If the DM made it clear that these kind of checks can backfire, then I can't call it a **** move, since the players knew it could be coming. As for RAW...come on now...who plays full RAW anyway? :P

[Xenogears]

Maybe I'm wrong, but can't you still kill someone with nonlethal damage? For example, if a wizard has 10 health and takes 30 nonlethal damage, you still die because the excess damage carries over to lethal? Just sayin'.

You're wrong. You can never kill someone with non-lethal damage. That's why it's called non-lethal.

[ArcturusV]

The only exception to that I've seen is Massive Damage. Or Sandstorm which finally gave a rule that said Non-Lethal damage from a lack of food/water will in fact kill you.

[The Trickster]

You're wrong. You can never kill someone with non-lethal damage. That's why it's called non-lethal.

Then I stand corrected. Must have been a house rule. My bad! :P

[Hua]

Unless you go back to 2.0 or prior, higher is better result, always. You should have made reversed the numbers. The player is correct in that he did his job well and thus succeeded.
Give them the loot and move on.

[Zeful]

Here's where the analogy fails: the relative power level of the person being tracked is independent of your Survival (or Gather Information, in the case of Urban Tracking) result. It would be closer to the OP's situation if, say, the person you were tracking was stronger because you rolled a high Survival result.

Which is entirely possible depending on circumstance, and how a DM decides to adjudicate natural 20s or 1s for skills. I've played enough to know that for the enough players want natural 20s to be a critical success for everything, not just Attack rolls and saves that most DMs privately consider what mechanics might best suit their games.

In this particular example, lets say that a critical success on survival while tracking allowed the check to take less time, or let the character track while moving or on horseback, catching up to whoever they're tracking much quicker than the encounter was designed for, if tracking the subject also lead them to find a bear he was attacked by while they were following his trail, then it's entirely possible for the players to catch up before he met the bear, resulting in an enemy that is fresh and unwounded, and thus a stronger combatant.

[VanBuren]

Which is entirely possible depending on circumstance, and how a DM decides to adjudicate natural 20s or 1s for skills. I've played enough to know that for the enough players want natural 20s to be a critical success for everything, not just Attack rolls and saves that most DMs privately consider what mechanics might best suit their games.

In this particular example, lets say that a critical success on survival while tracking allowed the check to take less time, or let the character track while moving or on horseback, catching up to whoever they're tracking much quicker than the encounter was designed for, if tracking the subject also lead them to find a bear he was attacked by while they were following his trail, then it's entirely possible for the players to catch up before he met the bear, resulting in an enemy that is fresh and unwounded, and thus a stronger combatant.

Which comes back to the point being made: Higher rolls don't necessarily lead to better consequences, but they should lead to better success at the intended task.

Your example would actually be pretty cool, though I doubt I'd ever think of it.

[ko_sct]

**** move ? naaah.... Best possible move ? Probably not.

I've skipped a few post but I haven't seen someone really calculate it, so lets see what happen if we use the DC like OP did.

1-14: failure, nothing happen.
15-17: success !
18+ : Big failure.

Now, a 10 str, 16 dex rogue try to pry the gem out. His chances are:
70% nothing happen, 15% success, 15% critical failure.

Now, the 20str, 16 dex barbarian try his luck, his chances are:
45% nothing happen, 15% success, 40% critical failure.

Can you see a problem here ? Being stronger do not improve his chances of succeding on a strenght check, in fact, it only improve his chance of a huge failling, now wheter you like the idea of using too much strengh on a good roll being possible (I don't), you can see that your chance of success does not, in fact, have anything to do with strenght.

Heck, lets see the same situation, but with even more extremes:

A greedy wizard with 4 strenght try to get his hands on the gem first:
85% nothing happen, 15% success, 0% critical failure.

The same barbarian as before try again, but this time the wizard is tired of wasting time on that stupid gem and cast bull strenght on him (+2 to the check), the priest chim him and cast bless (+1, cause why not ? he ain't gonna use that spell-slot anyway) and the bard decide to sing for him (let's say +2)
25% nothing happen, 15% success, 60% critical failure.

Using that kind of systeme, EVERYONE, has the same chance of success, no matter how strong or precise they are, and you can't tilt the odds in your favor, no matter what you do, no matter what ressources you use.

No lets see how the maths work out, using the more standard way of:
1-3: Big failure
4-17: Nothing happen
18+: Success

Mage 4str (-3):
30% critical failure, 70% nothing happen.

Rogue 10 str:
15% Big failure, 70% nothing happen, 15% success

Barbarian 20str:
65% nothing happen, 35% success

Barbariant boosted 24 str, +3 bonus
50% nothing happen, 50% success.


As you can see, in the first system, allocating ressources to the challenge is actually harmfull, when doing a str check, you should alway let the pathetically weak wizard try first, while in the second, boosting someone strenght actually help him instend of hinder him.


EDIT: even worse if you use that cleric spell someone mentionned that give +20 on a single roll, it's not like you become supper strong, it's like you got that divine inspiration in you.... which make you go from: can't pull it out to destroy everything instend of helping you.....

So in short, while a roll under system can work pefrectly and make perfect sense, D&D wasn't built like that, and using such a system without a lot of houserules will cause a lot of conflicts.

[Dimers]

Late to the game, I know. Here's my 2cp.

When I designed my game system, I POINTED OUT the only exception to the rule that high rolls are good. And the exception applies only to a narrow set of conditions and does NOT get used for any skill roll outside that known area. I wouldn't even have the exception for that one case if I didn't have to represent people who toy with something they know for a fact is dangerous and notoriously hard to control.

I don't think it was "a **** move" because it just sprang from a miscommunication about what possible results the action could have ... but if I were DMing, I'd make sure to keep high rolls good in the future.

[Acanous]

Just like to say: If you had made the headstone "Ancient and frail" beforehand, and eliminated the result of "Get rubies without breaking headstone", it would have actually been fine. The STR check broke the thing and let the Ghoul out. ANY success would have broke the thing and let the Ghoul out. He still gets the Rubies. A fail means no rubies and no ghoul.

That would be fair in a Survival/Horror.

In future cases, Higher rolls=better result in 3.5, so a natural 20 should be "You get the Rubies without breaking the Headstone" while a 15-18 would be "You break the headstone and release the Ghoul".

[Xaragos]

Using Skills
When your character uses a skill, you make a skill check to see how well he or she does. The higher the result of the skill check, the better. Based on the circumstances, your result must match or beat a particular number (a DC or the result of an opposed skill check) for the check to be successful. The harder the task, the higher the number you need to roll.

How do you argue with that? At least in this system, higher is better. I know as a player I would be pissed if I heard a DM say well if you rolled an 18 all would have been fine, without a reflex save or something. I mean I hear folks talking about it being a horror setting. So what. I can tell my players its MY setting so x,y,z is true but that doesn't make it reasonable or right. If the consequences scaled upwards where the higher rolls were the ones that provided the intended results, that is fair. To somehow inject the positive roll in the middle of that just goes against the game's design. I don't think the OP was trying to be a ****, but if this happened on more than one occasion I would have a player DM talk about it.

[Xerxus]

In this specific case, the success is undeniable - the jewel comes loose. The only difference is that the DM has chosen to let a higher roll mean a better result where better means more force. The fact that the headstone comes loose would not have been an issue if there had been no ghoul inside - therefore, the strength check is irrelevant and does not pertain to the ghoul appearing.

The player chose a course of action, succeeded at the immediate task - prying the jewel loose - then suffered the consequences of applying too much force (which in this case is completely logical, because what is better for a strength check is more force). Yes, a barbarian would have broken the headstone more easily. No, no one would have complained had there not been a ghoul inside.

[ArcturusV]

You know, the people mentioning the DC and "More is better" rulings generally seem... odd. The example with the door that was being mentioned. And the declaration that a better roll is "using your strength effectively and only the minimal amount needed" as per the Jump check that usually gets mentioned along with the door example.

Because it creates this weird, weird image in my mind where a barbarian is going to crash through some DC 10 door. Lowers his shoulder, ready to charge into it... dice are rolled, he gets a 18 plus his 4 strength modifier and has more than enough strength to blast through the door. And instead the idea that he can apply "just enough" means he's charging at it shoulder down, and when he hits the door immediately stops, gives it a gentle push, and barely cracks the door open.

Instead of slamming into the door, ripping it off the hinges, broken in half and having his momentum carry him into the next room by 5 feet.

Which as a storyteller makes more sense to me. Even if it doesn't make mechanical sense in the context of the rules.

I suppose it's ideas like that, the "Storyteller" point of view over the "Strictly Mechanical" point of view that really matter.

[Oscredwin]

The player chose a course of action, succeeded at the immediate task - prying the jewel loose - then suffered the consequences of applying too much force (which in this case is completely logical, because what is better for a strength check is more force). Yes, a barbarian would have broken the headstone more easily. No, no one would have complained had there not been a ghoul inside.

The party comes to a room where there is a giant pit. Ten feet out from the ledge, there is a magic pedestal that they need to step on to teleport to the next area according to the directions they've been given. The barbarian jumps, the cleric and the wizard fly, but when the monk tries to jump he gets a modified 40 and falls into the pit behind the pedestal.

The player chose a course of action, succeeded at the immediate task - jumping the 10 ft - then suffered the consequences of applying too much jump (which in this case is completely logical, because what is better for a jump check is more distance).

[Darius Kane]

(which in this case is completely logical, because what is better for a strength check is more force)
No, no it isn't. What is better is just the right amount of force.

[SaintRidley]

For some context, its a survival horror e6 game.



That alone is enough context for me to say no.

[Lonely Tylenol]

In this specific case, the success is undeniable - the jewel comes loose. better[/I] means more force. The fact that the headstone comes loose would not have been an issue if there had been no ghoul inside - therefore, the strength check is irrelevant and does not pertain to the ghoul appearing.

The player chose a course of action, succeeded at the immediate task - prying the jewel loose - then suffered the consequences of applying too much force (which in this case is completely logical, because what is better for a strength check is more force). Yes, a barbarian would have broken the headstone more easily. No, no one would have complained had there not been a ghoul inside.

In response to the bold:


I can twist the lid on that pickle jar as hard as I damn well please, but unless I'm twisting it in the right direction...

In response to the rest:

Yes, I would have complained if the negative consequences of the first "rolled over" result happened--which was the sarcophagus lid falling on the player who pried it loose, causing him a small amount of damage--because even this defies the basic assumptions of how the game works, by assigning worse outcomes to better results. I take time out of my life to come to the table and play D&D, not Calvinball. You assume otherwise--that the ghoul is what makes this egregious--but your assumptions are laughably wrong. It is the principle of the thing that annoys me.


You know, the people mentioning the DC and "More is better" rulings generally seem... odd. The example with the door that was being mentioned. And the declaration that a better roll is "using your strength effectively and only the minimal amount needed" as per the Jump check that usually gets mentioned along with the door example.

Because it creates this weird, weird image in my mind where a barbarian is going to crash through some DC 10 door. Lowers his shoulder, ready to charge into it... dice are rolled, he gets a 18 plus his 4 strength modifier and has more than enough strength to blast through the door. And instead the idea that he can apply "just enough" means he's charging at it shoulder down, and when he hits the door immediately stops, gives it a gentle push, and barely cracks the door open.

Instead of slamming into the door, ripping it off the hinges, broken in half and having his momentum carry him into the next room by 5 feet.

Which as a storyteller makes more sense to me. Even if it doesn't make mechanical sense in the context of the rules.

I suppose it's ideas like that, the "Storyteller" point of view over the "Strictly Mechanical" point of view that really matter.

Inb4StormwindFallacy... Wait. Crap.

This sounds like a more literal reflavoring of what it means to "break" a door, than any sort of real interpretation of how the rules work. When I say "I break down the door", it means "I break down the door". It doesn't mean "this door looks easy to break, so I guess I'll knock politely". If I meant that, I'd say it. The thing about success in the d20 system is it is [supposed to be] binary; you either succeed or you fail (sometimes to varying degrees), which means if I try to kick in the door, and I succeed, I kick in that door. It doesn't matter if I succeeded by 1, or 11, or 111. Any way you want to reflavor it is up to you, but if you bind yourself to flavoring things only based on what you think the bare minimum requires, you are limiting yourself every bit as much as if you only constrained yourself to the unrestricted maximum--and neither is the virtue of good storytelling.

Personally, I prefer the second you gave; just because a door is easy to break down, or you scale the DC by much more than is necessary, doesn't mean it isn't satisfying to break the door down. Similarly with the Jump check; if I scale the Jump check by 30, I don't expect my character to break into a run before the chasm before him and then... Timidly hop over it. Quite the opposite, actually: since I did that much better than the minimum expectations, I expect my character, lithely and effortlessly, to scale the chasm, braced for impact before the fall, and landing gracefully at the other side with both feet planted firmly on the ground, unscathed, without so much as a sweat, and resume unimpeded. That makes sense to me.

What doesn't make sense to me is "you make a headlong charge at the door, but you burst through it with so much force that you pass right through it--and can't stop yourself! You crash uselessly into the broad back of the Ogre chieftain and fall prone, finding yourself surrounded by your foes!"

Or "you kick in the door, but you do it so forcefully that the door swings open--and then bounces back and slams in your face as you pass through the doorway! You take 1d6 points of non lethal damage as the door smashes against your nose, breaking it!"

Or "you scale the chasm, but you jump with such grace and majesty that you accidentally scale the chasm by several dozen feet--in fact, your jump is at the peak of its arc when you slam against the wall above the corridor at the other end! Your body crumples against the opposite wall and falls to the ground below, dealing 1d6 points of damage on impact and another 1d6 points of falling damage!"

This isn't good narrative--it's just a **** move, and, contrarily, the worst form of storytelling--the kind that trivializes the players' successes by reducing it to slapstick, or even just undermines it when it doesn't. This is tantamount to the critical fumble, and is equally as welcomed in my games.

[Boci]

In response to the bold:

So, you're the DM, the barbarian jumps 40ft, which carries him over the first pit and into the second pit. What do you rule happens?

[Oscredwin]

So, you're the DM, the barbarian jumps 40ft, which carries him over the first pit and into the second pit. What do you rule happens?

I'm not who this was targeted to but....

If the player says "I jump over the [10 ft] pit" and rolls 40ft result the player succeeds on the jump and lands on the far side of the pit. If the player says "I jump .... 40ft" once he sees the roll, then he lands on whatever is 40ft out.

[Lonely Tylenol]

So, you're the DM, the barbarian jumps 40ft, which carries him over the first pit and into the second pit. What do you rule happens?

Was he trying to jump 40 feet, into the second pit? Or was his check result 40, and you're assigning a result of a 40 foot jump based on his check result, even though he was only trying to jump 15 feet?

If the former (the Barbarian was trying to jump 40 feet even though the necessary distance was much shorter), he jumps 40 feet and falls into the second pit.

If the latter (the Barbarian was simply trying to scale the first pit, and you are assigning a jump distance of 40 feet to the jump), then you clearly haven't read any of my posts (up to and including the one you quoted), and I'm offended that I even have to answer this.

But if it were me DMing, and the latter situation was the case, then he would scale the first pit effortlessly and land between the two pits (by necessity, there is a "between", otherwise it would be described as "one big pit" and not "two pits"), because he passed the DC he intended to pass--which is to say, the DC20 or whatever necessary to scale the pit--how much he beat it by is irrelevant.

[Answerer]

The wording on the Jump skill absolutely backs up Lonely Tylenol here.

There is room for debate about whether or not this counts as a "**** move", but there is no room for debate about whether or not it was incorrect. It was incorrect and a mistake.

[Boci]

Was he trying to jump 40 feet, into the second pit? Or was his check result 40, and you're assigning a result of a 40 foot jump based on his check result, even though he was only trying to jump 15 feet?

I guess so, but I feel like this is very easily going to end up being a "having your cake and eating it" situation for the PC. Imagine the following:

PC: I get a 40 on the check to jump 15ft across the pit.
DM: Okay, you jump 15ft precisely, landing in the second half of the pit, which was concealed by an illusion.

A. Is that situation fair?
B. Will the PC agree agree, or cry foul?

[Answerer]

That situation is exactly what the rules tell you to do, and seems entirely fair to me. He accomplished his intention because he rolled well. He simply was misinformed and made a bad decision.

Of course, traps are super-lame anyway.

[Darius Kane]

A. Is that situation fair?
Depends on the particular game. In Another Gaming Comic there was a ban on illusions because the game was getting unbearable because of them.


B. Will the PC agree agree, or cry foul?
Why would he cry foul, other than because of the above mentioned issue?

[Boci]

Depends on the particular game. In Another Gaming Comic there was a ban on illusions because the game was getting unbearable because of them.

Nice dishonest manipulation of context there. They specifically allow illusions in their 3.5 games because the change in rules removes the problem they had with them (that disbeliving them was active, whereas 3.5 made it passive).


Why would he cry foul, other than because of the above mentioned issue?

Because the player rolled high enough to jump over the full trap.


Of course, traps are super-lame anyway.

Depends how they are handled. Dungeonscape had some stuff on their use.

[Henryj]

You know, the people mentioning the DC and "More is better" rulings generally seem... odd. The example with the door that was being mentioned. And the declaration that a better roll is "using your strength effectively and only the minimal amount needed" as per the Jump check that usually gets mentioned along with the door example.

Because it creates this weird, weird image in my mind where a barbarian is going to crash through some DC 10 door. Lowers his shoulder, ready to charge into it... dice are rolled, he gets a 18 plus his 4 strength modifier and has more than enough strength to blast through the door. And instead the idea that he can apply "just enough" means he's charging at it shoulder down, and when he hits the door immediately stops, gives it a gentle push, and barely cracks the door open.

Instead of slamming into the door, ripping it off the hinges, broken in half and having his momentum carry him into the next room by 5 feet.

Which as a storyteller makes more sense to me. Even if it doesn't make mechanical sense in the context of the rules.

I suppose it's ideas like that, the "Storyteller" point of view over the "Strictly Mechanical" point of view that really matter.

The question is why you can't let the description part, and the mechanical part divided...
If the barbarian want to destroy a door (Dc 10) with his portentous streght, if he make 10 you can say that with multiple kicks he opened the door.. if he roll a 20+4 streght+2 rage or watherever you can say that he hit the door so badly that he destroyed the hinges (or how is it called) and the door fell down to the floor...
Different description, same result..
what you can't do, in my opinion, is say that he's kick was so strong that he make a hole in the door and now he is blocked..

"his momentum carriyng him 5 feet in the room" is nice generally, fun to imagine with no relevant consequences, but i'll be upset as a player if this momentum make me activate a trap.. or because of it my character has fallen into a deadly pit...

Obviously you can say that he gently pushes the door, if this door was basicly open.. in this case you can make that a failure means that the barbarian rushed in to the door and fell prone because there was any resistence.. not the opposite...
you can't say that a guy that rolls a 10 simply opened the door and the barbarian rolling 20 fell prone...


I guess so, but I feel like this is very easily going to end up being a "having your cake and eating it" situation for the PC. Imagine the following:

PC: I get a 40 on the check to jump 15ft across the pit.
DM: Okay, you jump 15ft precisely, landing in the second half of the pit, which was concealed by an illusion.

A. Is that situation fair?
B. Will the PC agree agree, or cry foul?

The point is that he wanted to land there.. what if the illusion was on the other side.. like, you rolled 40, i'm sorry, you didn't catch the first stop (where he wanted to go), you landed directly on the other side, wich is an illusion..

If the want's to reach somewhere and roll high, he reach there, is ok if it's a trap or something.. he decided to go there..
But if a too high score makes him do what he didn't wanted, and get's injured or whatereve.. that is not good.

[Philistine]

Are you serious? How on Earth are you equating this:

So, you're the DM, the barbarian jumps 40ft, which carries him over the first pit and into the second pit. What do you rule happens?
With this:

Imagine the following:

PC: I get a 40 on the check to jump 15ft across the pit.
DM: Okay, you jump 15ft precisely, landing in the second half of the pit, which was concealed by an illusion.? Those two things are in no way equivalent.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Because it creates this weird, weird image in my mind where a barbarian is going to crash through some DC 10 door. Lowers his shoulder, ready to charge into it... dice are rolled, he gets a 18 plus his 4 strength modifier and has more than enough strength to blast through the door. And instead the idea that he can apply "just enough" means he's charging at it shoulder down, and when he hits the door immediately stops, gives it a gentle push, and barely cracks the door open.

Instead of slamming into the door, ripping it off the hinges, broken in half and having his momentum carry him into the next room by 5 feet.


Have you ever forced a door open? Serious question.

In my experience you first try to push it hard with your hand on the latch, then use the other hand to help push, then hit it with your shoulder while keeping your hand on the latch. All this happens in just a few seconds. A small running start should proably be a full round action that adds a small circumstance bonus and maybe lets you apply your size modifier and it could very possibly have negative consequences from hitting too hard.

[Boci]

Are you serious? How on Earth are you equating this:

I never saud I was equating them. I said I worried that Lonely Tylenol's line of thinking could lead to a "having your cake and eating it" situation, and used an alternative scenario to demonstrate. Maybe I've just been playing too much WoD lately, but I'd have no problem with a high strength check yielding undesierable reults, as long as they didn't screw the party over too much.

[Ashtagon]

The main point I think is to establish what the character is trying to do, and rule that a success means he achieves that, and nothing more.

In the example noted earlier about the barbarian shoving the door open, I would imagine he would first try pushing it with his hand, then shouldering it from a starting start, then a standing kick, then a running shoulder or kick. He's not going to use more effort than is actually needed to achieve his stated aim.

For the pit, if he said he was aiming to jump over the first pit to the ledge just beyond it, a success means he reaches that ledge, and if it turns out to be an illusion, too bad. His jump check did exactly what he asked of it and nothing more, since that's what he was aiming for.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I guess so, but I feel like this is very easily going to end up being a "having your cake and eating it" situation for the PC. Imagine the following:

PC: I get a 40 on the check to jump 15ft across the pit.
DM: Okay, you jump 15ft precisely, landing in the second half of the pit, which was concealed by an illusion.

A. Is that situation fair?
B. Will the PC agree agree, or cry foul?

So let me get this straight:

There is a first pit immediately in front of the player... And a second pit further away, behind the first...

...And within the distance between the two is covered entirely by an illusory pit?

Are you sure you're not just constantly modifying the rules in order to create an unwinnable situation for the player? In which case, why even bother making him roll? Just tell him he falls into the pit no matter what he tries; obviously that is the intention here. In fact, why is the player even playing under that sort of DM to begin with?

But OK, all these questions aside, the player intended to jump 15 feet, despite rolling a 40. That is the stated DC he is trying to beat, the intended distance he is trying to scale with his jump, so if he beats that DC, he scales that distance. That he is now jumping into an illusory pit (the product of incomplete player knowledge or apparent DM sadism) is irrelevant; he jumps the desired distance because that is what happens when you successfully do something as you intended to do it. Besides, it doesn't matter if he tried to jump 40 feet anyway, as obviously he would have fallen into the second pit if he had jumped 40 feet anyway (see: the player is meant to fall into a pit, DM Sadism, etc).

"But wait!" you proclaim defiantly. "What if, in this whimsically increasingly contrived scenario, the second pit was also and illusion, and wasn't actually a pit? Then the optimal result is certainly to jump 40 feet, into the fake second pit!"

"Nonsense and poppycock!", I would scream back, drunkenly and belligerently, in spite of my sobriety, "and also irrelevant! The player intended to jump 15 feet, and does exactly that when he beats the DC, even if the optimal result is to actually jump 40 feet, because he is not trying to clear a DC40 Jump check. To automatically adjust for the "optimal" result, by setting the outcome as the result of a Jump check he didn't make! The result would be changing his jump from a 15 feet horizontal jump to a 40 foot one-- in midair! Impossible without hooliganism and shenanigans!"

Player action is dictated by player action first, and then the results of that action. These actions are not always the best actions. If the player sets a jump DC that has him jumping down a bottomless pit, he will likely fall into that pit, regardless of whether he succeeds or fails at the check. If the player response to a Jovoc (which has a retributive aura that deals as much damage as it takes to every living thing within range) is "I Power Attack for full", and the player beats it's AC, the result isn't that the player whiffs because that's the best outcome; the result is that the player hits, because they did a good job of dropping the hammer on that Jovoc. That it clearly isn't the most desirable outcome is irrelevant.

[Darius Kane]

Nice dishonest manipulation of context there.
:smallconfused:
Firstly - Calm the eff down dude and don't insult me.
Secondly - What manipulation are you talking about? I pretty clearly said "was". In case you didn't remember, they did play earlier edition in the earlier strips.

[ArcturusV]

Yes I have. And I have done the "Stumble into the next room" thing after charging it. Then again if I was DnD statted I'd probably have something like a 8 for Strength. So just carefully pushing a door wouldn't work. Shoulder charge would. But the D20 result is too variable so it might be that I barely crack the door jam and only open the door a little. Or that I split the door jam and end up in the next room. I've done both.

Though it's also my DnD experience that players don't generally go and poke, prod, and be careful with a door unless the DM prompts them with "... Just HOW are you opening that door..."

Usually it's something like a full kick or a shoulder charge as a default.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I never saud I was equating them. I said I worried that Lonely Tylenol's line of thinking could lead to a "having your cake and eating it" situation, and used an alternative scenario to demonstrate. Maybe I've just been playing too much WoD lately, but I'd have no problem with a high strength check yielding undesierable reults, as long as they didn't screw the party over too much.

The problem here is that:
1)the DM here assumed what the character was doing (simply trying to apply massive force, which is not what the check actually entails).

2) the DM here also inverted the success scale somewhat illogically (instead of having success = ghoul or narrow success = ghoul, he had clear success = ghoul) which is not going to sit well with players.

Also your counter example was nonsensical. I roll a check to do a thing I specify, I make a roll, pass. And in partially unrelated news there is a hidden trap I just landed on. Why would a high jump check let me jump over the second pit that I don't know is there, when I explicitly said that I wanted to jump 15 ft?

Edit: holy swarm on ninja's. This is what I get for being distracted by Dethklok.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Yes I have. And I have done the "Stumble into the next room" thing after charging it. Then again if I was DnD statted I'd probably have something like a 8 for Strength. So just carefully pushing a door wouldn't work. Shoulder charge would.

Well, thanks for your honesty about the low stat. Have you ever watched someone with a 14ish str do it?

Now that I think of it same question regarding prying things loose to Xerxus because he's seems flabbergasted and tries to hide behind rules when I describe how one does such a thing.

When performing any kind of manual labor weaker people are forced to use sloppy/dangerous methods to exert the same force stronger people apply with safe/proper methods and experience/intelligence/common sense stops people from trying certain methods or allows them to exert more force relatively safely.

[ArcturusV]

Not really short of stuff in movies, which I don't accept as any sort of accurate model anyway.

[Unusual Muse]

1-3: Big failure
4-17: Nothing happen
18+: Success

Yes, this.



Even worse if you use that cleric spell someone mentionned that give +20 on a single roll, it's not like you become supper strong, it's like you got that divine inspiration in you.... which make you go from: can't pull it out to destroy everything instend of helping you.....

Exactly:

DM: "Okay, roll a DC 15 Listen check."
Player: *rolls*... "20! With my modifier that's a 28!"
DM: "You Listen so well that you hear the peasants partying in the next village, which blocks out the sound of the orc 20 feet away from you. He sneaks up and crits you. You're dead."

[Boci]

But OK, all these questions aside, the player intended to jump 15 feet, despite rolling a 40. That is the stated DC he is trying to beat, the intended distance he is trying to scale with his jump, so if he beats that DC, he scales that distance. That he is now jumping into an illusory pit (the product of incomplete player knowledge or apparent DM sadism)

Okay, that works. As long as people are consistent, and agree that in the second example the PC has no right to complain I'm perfectly happy with this line of thinking. Although on a side note I find it interesting how many people only acknowledged the validity of my counter example alongside a jab at either traps, illusions or sadistic DMs.



Secondly - What manipulation are you talking about?

You brought a houserule into a 3.5 edition discussion, and did not make it clear that the rule was based off the mechanics of a previous edition. That to me is dishonest, I'm sorry if you feel insulted by that.

[SaintRidley]

I can twist the lid on that pickle jar as hard as I damn well please, but unless I'm twisting it in the right direction...

Careful, because you might break the jar.

[Shinigaze]

Personally I think it's a **** move if only for the fact that you are sandwiching the success roll with two fail rolls.

1-14 Failure, do not get gems.
14-17 Success! Get Gems!!
18+ Failure, do not get gems and also you fight a ghoul.

Sure, he might get the gems after the ghoul fight(which by the way the OP stated he didn't because the ghoul fight made him forget about the gems.) but you are still giving him a 2/3 chance to fail unless he rolls the exact number required. Being skilled at something no longer means anything.

This is in effect saying that if I make a fighter who specializes in melee combat and I have a high to-hit that I will always fail because I am too good at hitting the enemy.

DM: Roll to hit.
PC: I rolled a 19, plus my to hit it equals 31!
DM: You rolled exceptionally well and hit well above his AC, but in doing so you applied too much force to your blow and your weapon gets stuck. Now roll damage!
PC:....... ummm ok, I roll 2d6 and get two 6s add in +6 damage and that is 18 damage.
DM: Alright! You did 10 damage over his current HP so your weapon shatters due the the sheer awesome damage you have done to the enemy! Good news! Your weapon isn't stuck anymore!

[Lonely Tylenol]

Okay, that works. As long as people are consistent, and agree that in the second example the PC has no right to complain I'm perfectly happy with this line of thinking. Although on a side note I find it interesting how many people only acknowledged the validity of my counter example alongside a jab at either traps, illusions or sadistic DMs.

Tongue firmly in cheek, of course. :smallwink:

You have to admit that the example scenario you gave (a pit trap followed by another pit trap, with the gap being bridged by still another pit trap was pretty absurd, whether it was a fair evaluation of player honesty or not. :smalltongue:


You brought a houserule into a 3.5 edition discussion, and did not make it clear that the rule was based off the mechanics of a previous edition. That to me is dishonest, I'm sorry if you feel insulted by that.

I'm afraid I can't speak on his behalf, but I'm sure his response was tongue-in-cheek as well.

[Boci]

You have to admit that the example scenario you gave (a pit trap followed by another pit trap, with the gap being bridged by still another pit trap was pretty absurd, whether it was a fair evaluation of player honesty or not.

Non-standard, certainly, and requires the BBEG to be at least fairly intelligent and possess a flair for the dramatic, but I don't feel its that absurd, as long as this is part of the dungeon/base that doesn't recieve frequent traffic yet requires protection. Depending on the terrain, digging two holes and filling them with stakes is fairly cheap, and after that the illusion is the only tricky part.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I think the pit series is fine and that Lonely's jump analysis is exactly correct by RAW, RAI, spirit of the rules, heart of the cards, etc.

Cast a detect spell or throw coins before jumping or you fall into a pit seems perfectly fair to me. The hallway could be disused possibly giving evidence that it's a trap or there could be a walkway on the side hidden by the same illusion hiding the second pit.

I think his tounge in cheek comment was triggered by the series of "what ifs" that made it sound like Schrödinger's pit filled hallway if they were all true and untrue in sequence.

[Synovia]

Eh, I would. Private house rules that you don't mention? Yeah that there be a move I do not recommend. In d20, barring special exceptions, a 20 is a good thing. Not an automatic success in every case but still a, good thing.

Agree with this. It was a poor DM'ing move, as it was completely counter to what the player thought he was rolling for. The D20 isn't "How hard you push" but "How well you apply your strength".

I would have done something like this:

1-5 : Failure and topples stone onto sarcophogus
6-14: Failure
15-20: Success.

Rolling higher should always be better.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I think the pit series is fine and that Lonely's jump analysis is exactly correct by RAW, RAI, spirit of the rules, heart of the cards, etc.

Cast a detect spell or throw coins before jumping or you fall into a pit seems perfectly fair to me. The hallway could be disused possibly giving evidence that it's a trap or there could be a walkway on the side hidden by the same illusion hiding the second pit.

I think his tounge in cheek comment was triggered by the series of "what ifs" that made it sound like Schrödinger's pit filled hallway if they were all true and untrue in sequence.

Precisely this.

[Killer Angel]

You have to admit that the example scenario you gave (a pit trap followed by another pit trap, with the gap being bridged by still another pit trap was pretty absurd, whether it was a fair evaluation of player honesty or not. :smalltongue:


But once in a life, it would also be pretty funny / clever, and worth remembering. :smallbiggrin:

[Synovia]

I remember a game I played where I played and evil ranger and was trapped in a maze dungeon thing, and I made an intimidate check against an older gentleman who lived inside the place, in order to find the exit. I rolled a 20; The DM ruled I scared the old man and gave him a heart attack. Was I a little upset?

This is just another poor application of game mechanics. It should have been something like this:

1-5: You scare the old man to death
5-15: It doesn't work.
16-20: He's scared of you and shows you the exit.

Low rolls don't mean that you're weak, or not scary, or whatever, they mean that you have poorly applied your skill.

[Answerer]

Continuing to talk about things on a scale of 20 is wrong. It implies that the bonus doesn't matter, only the die, which is the opposite of how ability and skill checks work.

You have a DC to accomplish something. Failure prevents that accomplishment. Failure by more than a certain amount may result in a particularly spectacular failure. Beating the DC by more than a certain amount may result in a particularly spectacular success.

But it has nothing to do with the die roll, only on the final result of die+bonus. If the DC is 25, and somebody has 24, he succeeds even if he rolled a 1.

And this is why it's wrong to put worse results above better results: it means that your bonus works against you. That is explicitly against the rules, and contrary to the entire d20 system.

Higher is better is the first and most important rule of the system. If you do not abide by it, you are not playing a d20 System game.

[Socratov]

Continuing to talk about things on a scale of 20 is wrong. It implies that the bonus doesn't matter, only the die, which is the opposite of how ability and skill checks work.

You have a DC to accomplish something. Failure prevents that accomplishment. Failure by more than a certain amount may result in a particularly spectacular failure. Beating the DC by more than a certain amount may result in a particularly spectacular success.

But it has nothing to do with the die roll, only on the final result of die+bonus. If the DC is 25, and somebody has 24, he succeeds even if he rolled a 1.

And this is why it's wrong to put worse results above better results: it means that your bonus works against you. That is explicitly against the rules, and contrary to the entire d20 system.

Higher is better is the first and most important rule of the system. If you do not abide by it, you are not playing a d20 System game.

Dude, the first rule is rule 0, or, have fun!, then is rule 1, the DM gets to be right, no disucssion in game. then com ethe actual described rules. (this was half funnily, half seriously btw)

On the topic: if the str roll (not to compare to jump since it's a different roll altogether in principle). If the roll represents how well you apply your strength a higher roll means you apply more strength. (no that doesn't mean you get stronger, you just apply the strength you do have with a better lever allowing for more strength application). the ghoul was not due to a high roll, it was due to a player shattering the headpiece due to a good roll (in my eyes highly indirect). besides, I thought the player did get the rubies when the headpiece shattered and that the fallen pieces of headpiece awakened the ghoul. I think that especially in an e6 horror fantasy game it's not a **** move at all and that the player should be more aware of his surroundings and actions. In a horrorgame paranoia shoulcn't be a psychological condition but a survival trait. Also people should venerate Murphy's law whenever possible.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Oh, come on! This thing was dying!


Dude, the first rule is rule 0, or, have fun!, then is rule 1, the DM gets to be right, no disucssion in game. then com ethe actual described rules. (this was half funnily, half seriously btw)

On the topic: if the str roll (not to compare to jump since it's a different roll altogether in principle). If the roll represents how well you apply your strength a higher roll means you apply more strength. (no that doesn't mean you get stronger, you just apply the strength you do have with a better lever allowing for more strength application). the ghoul was not due to a high roll, it was due to a player shattering the headpiece due to a good roll (in my eyes highly indirect). besides, I thought the player did get the rubies when the headpiece shattered and that the fallen pieces of headpiece awakened the ghoul. I think that especially in an e6 horror fantasy game it's not a **** move at all and that the player should be more aware of his surroundings and actions. In a horrorgame paranoia shoulcn't be a psychological condition but a survival trait. Also people should venerate Murphy's law whenever possible.

Once again, for your benefit (in response to the bold)...


I can twist the lid on that pickle jar as hard as I damn well please, but unless I'm twisting it in the right direction...

Repeating the same claims, and then ignoring any evidence to the contrary does not a better argument make.

In fact, since everything you just said can be responded to with things I already said, this is a response to the underlined:


This [venerating Murphy's Law, etc] isn't good narrative--it's just a **** move, and, contrarily, the worst form of storytelling--the kind that trivializes the players' successes by reducing it to slapstick, or even just undermines it when it doesn't. This is tantamount to the critical fumble, and is equally as welcomed in my games.

And then let's not forget that Rule 0 was violated in all this, because obviously, the person whose successes were pre-empted (twice!) did not have fun with this wacky, zany headpiece slapstick. In fact, they complained, which is how this thread got created.

[Socratov]

Oh, come on! This thing was dying!

sorry :smallredface: I just know how much you like to argue :smallbiggrin:


Once again, for your benefit (in response to the bold)...

Love the quote, once twisted the top of a jar that way. Lots of glass, food inside spoiled, but with enough strength it's entirely possible to twist the top off (with some remaining glass) while turning the 'wrong' way. In that case I must have made a mother of str rolls since it normally wouldn't work. If we go back to the actual representation of randomness it is as follows. (be sharp, this is going to involve probably a lot of leaps apparently only I understand since at other times people coulnd't follow me)

So, we know the dice represent the random/chance/rarity of things happening. A critical hit (a most desired and rare outcome) even needs a small chance of starting up (nat 20 in most cases), and a second roll to confirm it. however succeeding to attack is dependant on actually beating another's number where rarity varies from 95% (to hit>AC) to 5% (to hit+19<AC). and while it's true that most of the time as the desiable effects go up, chance decreases (Reward R ^->Chance P v), resulting in a higher threshold (at nat 20 on attack roll you not only hit, but threaten a critical as well) {1}. Now this time, even when it wasn't intended to screw someone over, it was logical that the headpiece wouldn't easily break when someone pries a gem out of it. now in the rare case that the rogue unknowingly hits a natural break in the stone and presses it exactly the right way (smallest chance, but very possible) the stone crumbles. Otherwise the stone maybe crumble or dust a bit, but remain standing otherwise{2}. So if both {1} and {2} are actually accepted by you, combining would result in this situation not being a ****-move, just common sense hastily applied. Numerically the 18+ threshold not only frees the rubies, but breaks the headstone as well while anything less might free the rubies (or not) but leaves the headstone intact. Logically speaking this is entirely acceptable. If you (like some people have pointed out here) reverse the priorities of success (less then 18 being you break the headstone, 18+ leaves it intact) that is a splitsecond desicion probably inspired by what the player wants to roll for. coming back to my remark about Murphy's law: if the player had stopped to think he might have thought of this:


this is a tomb, so possibly undead are here
this is a rich man's tomb, so probably traps and curses are here
I want shiny
but not hit by traps
ergo, I should be careful


then he might come up with the wording: "I want to carefully remove the rubies from the headpiece without breaking the headpiece or something. (I know, I have perfect 20/20 hind vision here) In that case the not breaking headstone might have been a top priority and been factored into success...


Repeating the same claims, and then ignoring any evidence to the contrary does not a better argument make.

In fact, since everything you just said can be responded to with things I already said, this is a response to the underlined:



And then let's not forget that Rule 0 was violated in all this, because obviously, the person whose successes were pre-empted (twice!) did not have fun with this wacky, zany headpiece slapstick. In fact, theyone player complained, which is how this thread got created.
As far as I read the rest was fine with it. then another thing you are not right in assuming Murphy's Law is related to slapstick. If you try something in a horror campaign, you'd need to think with yourself what could go wrong when you take a certain action (like in a tomb of a mummy/ghoul, stealing some rubies from a headpiece, seriously, some alarmbells should start ringing). Now I'm not claiming I was there, but, as far as I can conclude on what the OP has given in terms of details the players more like expecting that his nat 20 was some sort of critical success, not thinking about criticval successes only available in saves and attackrolls. Then there is the fact of rolling high -> no consequences. if the player had rolled an 18 he would have accepted the result a lot better...

Oh, and lastly: an ad-hoc ruling can never be a ****-move since a ****-move insinuates intent to **** over while an ad-hoc ruling might just be unprepared. But that's just semantics :smallcool:

[Lonely Tylenol]

sorry :smallredface: I just know how much you like to argue :smallbiggrin:

:smallannoyed:


Love the quote, once twisted the top of a jar that way. Lots of glass, food inside spoiled, but with enough strength it's entirely possible to twist the top off (with some remaining glass) while turning the 'wrong' way. In that case I must have made a mother of str rolls since it normally wouldn't work.

Or, you failed by a wide enough margin that the worst possible outcome represented here (a woeful misapplication of strength) happened in place of a beneficial application. This resulted in the worst possible outcome (broken glass, spoiled food, the jar is unusable, and a very real risk of bodily injury is present) to accompany the worst possible approach (trying your absolute hardest to do something the wrong way).

If I may summarize what I'm getting out of your argument in three easy steps:

1) A higher rolled result is objectively, unambiguously better than a lower rolled result.
2) "More" is "better". (Do you work for AT&T?)
3) Therefore, a higher rolled result should apply "more" of the given attribute involved, resulting in a result that is objectively, unambiguously worse than a lower rolled result.

Am I getting this right?


If we go back to the actual representation of randomness it is as follows. (be sharp, this is going to involve probably a lot of leaps apparently only I understand since at other times people coulnd't follow me)

So, we know the dice represent the random/chance/rarity of things happening. A critical hit (a most desired and rare outcome) even needs a small chance of starting up (nat 20 in most cases), and a second roll to confirm it. however succeeding to attack is dependant on actually beating another's number where rarity varies from 95% (to hit>AC) to 5% (to hit+19<AC). and while it's true that most of the time as the desiable effects go up, chance decreases (Reward R ^->Chance P v), resulting in a higher threshold (at nat 20 on attack roll you not only hit, but threaten a critical as well) {1}. Now this time, even when it wasn't intended to screw someone over, it was logical that the headpiece wouldn't easily break when someone pries a gem out of it. now in the rare case that the rogue unknowingly hits a natural break in the stone and presses it exactly the right way (smallest chance, but very possible) the stone crumbles. Otherwise the stone maybe crumble or dust a bit, but remain standing otherwise{2}. So if both {1} and {2} are actually accepted by you, combining would result in this situation not being a ****-move, just common sense hastily applied.

I reject outright the silly notion that {2} follows logically from {1}. See above. You are talking about reward increasing as chance decreases (which should be represented by a bottlenecking of probability at the best possible outcome, as might be best represented by a pyramid), but what you are telling me is that reward decreases as chance decreases.


Numerically the 18+ threshold not only frees the rubies, but breaks the headstone as well while anything less might free the rubies (or not) but leaves the headstone intact. Logically speaking this is entirely acceptable.

No. It is the opposite of that.


then he might come up with the wording: "I want to carefully remove the rubies from the headpiece without breaking the headpiece or something. (I know, I have perfect 20/20 hind vision here) In that case the not breaking headstone might have been a top priority and been factored into success...
As far as I read the rest was fine with it. then another thing you are not right in assuming Murphy's Law is related to slapstick. If you try something in a horror campaign, you'd need to think with yourself what could go wrong when you take a certain action (like in a tomb of a mummy/ghoul, stealing some rubies from a headpiece, seriously, some alarmbells should start ringing). Now I'm not claiming I was there, but, as far as I can conclude on what the OP has given in terms of details the players more like expecting that his nat 20 was some sort of critical success, not thinking about criticval successes only available in saves and attackrolls. Then there is the fact of rolling high -> no consequences. if the player had rolled an 18 he would have accepted the result a lot better...

"I take 20 on my check to pry the ruby from the headstone. What happens?"

By the letter and spirit of the rules, "taking 20" on a check represents taking great care to do something until you get it just right. The result is that the check takes 20 times as long as you basically approach the task at hand from all angles until you reach the optimal solution (within the parameters of the rules). Regarding this specific example, the player would spend about two minutes (assuming he is not being rushed or threatened) to approach the ruby from all angles and finally find the one that best allows him to pry the thing from the headstone.

Relative to this game, though, "taking 20" is, for all purposes both numerical and otherwise, the equivalent of rolling a 20 on the d20 roll. However, rolling a 20 is bad, because it destroys the headstone and unleashes the ghoul.

Therefore, taking 20 on the check to pry free the ruby is equivalent to taking great care and patience to do the deed just right, and as a direct result, doing the deed too just right and freeing the ghoul anyway.

QED: Being careful and trying your very best to do it right (even when the act of doing so represents taking great care and patience) is directly related to the result most representative of a bull in a china shop, recklessly and without regard for consequence applying the most force in the worst possible way to accomplish a task that require subtlety.

Can we now agree that this is silly and drop it?


Oh, and lastly: an ad-hoc ruling can never be a ****-move since a ****-move insinuates intent to **** over while an ad-hoc ruling might just be unprepared. But that's just semantics :smallcool:

It's not an ad-hog ruling if it's used repeatedly, and the DM justifies it by way of precedent. Which is what happened.

As Ian Fleming once put it:

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."

[Xaragos]

Lets put this thread to bed.

It was a **** move.

In summary:

DM ruling went counter to D20 design. (this is fact)
No secondary save that made sense (reflex) to catch the falling stone to mitigate.
Player complained, was not having fun. (went against the core of why we play)
Horror Fantasy is NO EXCUSE, unless said result was going to happen no matter what the individual did.
AdHOC is NO EXCUSE for poor DMing.
Not intending to be a **** doesn't reduce ones capability to be a ****

Now thank goodness the player didn't die from the encounter. But come on...call a spade a spade. In this example someone with a Str mod of -1 would have had a better chance of opening the darned thing than someone with a decent strength. What?

To quote ESPN NFL commentators "COME ON MAN!"

[Darius Kane]

"I take 20 on my check to pry the ruby from the headstone. What happens?"

By the letter and spirit of the rules, "taking 20" on a check represents taking great care to do something until you get it just right. The result is that the check takes 20 times as long as you basically approach the task at hand from all angles until you reach the optimal solution (within the parameters of the rules). Regarding this specific example, the player would spend about two minutes (assuming he is not being rushed or threatened) to approach the ruby from all angles and finally find the one that best allows him to pry the thing from the headstone.

Relative to this game, though, "taking 20" is, for all purposes both numerical and otherwise, the equivalent of rolling a 20 on the d20 roll. However, rolling a 20 is bad, because it destroys the headstone and unleashes the ghoul.

Therefore, taking 20 on the check to pry free the ruby is equivalent to taking great care and patience to do the deed just right, and as a direct result, doing the deed too just right and freeing the ghoul anyway.

QED: Being careful and trying your very best to do it right (even when the act of doing so represents taking great care and patience) is directly related to the result most representative of a bull in a china shop, recklessly and without regard for consequence applying the most force in the worst possible way to accomplish a task that require subtlety.
Depending on what consequences you'd have for the failure, it might not be possible to "take 20".

Taking 20

When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take.

Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search.

[Socratov]

So, Tylenol and Xaragos, according to you being stupid and not mindful of consequences while looting a headstone in a horrocampaign and crying foul afterwards is quite acceptable behavior (yes I'm turning this around)?

If I might refer the the OP, the player whooped about rolling 20, and then heard he had to shake hands with a ghoul soon...

Oh, in my use of your example which you thought to have defused: my intentions were separating lid from jar. Even though I turned the wrong way around, thus phrasing it like: "I turn the Lid right to get the lid off. I roll a str check {rolls fantastically] I break the lid off the jar with pieces of glass flying around. the relevance is comparable in my eyes if the rogue says he pries the rubies loose with a dagger. He's not interested in the structural integrity of the headpiece, like I was with just getting the lid off... This may sound like lawyering, but that's what you do when raw get brought into it. That's why it's important to know what the player said exactly before rolling his check. that alone could dictate a ****-move or not...

[Lonely Tylenol]

Depending on what consequences you'd have for the failure, it might not be possible to "take 20".

I'm aware of this. I was actually thinking of exactly this as I wrote the post, and decided not to explain it away, because ???. I've honestly no reason.

In a sane and reasoned universe, those take 20 limitations would of course render this example moot, because there are consequences for performing the action incorrectly. Of course, as the situation stands, there are no consequences of failure, because the check, as described, had no consequences for failure (failing to beat the DC by any number meant nothing happened, and the PC is capable of retrying); there are only consequences for success... Which you'd inevitably reach with the take 20 action, leading to the inevitable conclusion of "I perform the greatest possible success... Which includes the consequences of success". In such a situation, consequences of failure are never an issue--but consequences of success become inevitable.

Which just makes the "take 20" rules in a "success curve" situation even more diabolical, because both care and planning, as well as natural talent or proficiency, result in increased failure.

For what it's worth, I agree with you; I think that, in such an environment, the take 20 clause can't exist without a safeword (because clearly either the DM is a sadist or the player is a masochist). I just don't think that's the case, because "consequences of failure" don't exist; failing to beat the DC (which is to say, any roll below the DC, no matter how far below) suffer the PC no consequences. "Consequences of success", on the other hand...

[Gwendol]

Socratov: they player was told to roll a strength check in order to pry the gems loose. He rolled high and disaster ensued. I can fully understand the player being upset about the ruling. It's hard to armchair quarterback like this, but giving the player some chance of assessing the risk involved would be advised: a knowledge or disable device check for example.

[Killer Angel]

Socratov: they player was told to roll a strength check in order to pry the gems loose. He rolled high and disaster ensued. I can fully understand the player being upset about the ruling. It's hard to armchair quarterback like this, but giving the player some chance of assessing the risk involved would be advised: a knowledge or disable device check for example.

To be fair, it wasn't the first time, the players already knew that a nat 20 on a strenght check, means thay enter the house rule of "too much strenght applied".
Which could be unfair, but if the DM ask you a ST check and you know the risk involved in rolling too high, you could try another option.

[Socratov]

Thank you KA for swordsaging me :smallbiggrin: I concur completely with 1 addition:

With the DM's I played with I need to consciously search for traps or initiate the finding of traps (f.e. I search the door for traps). If I neglect making such statements my DM just lets me run into them and roll saves... if the rogue wanted to assess the situation better (s)he should have said so. Investigating the world is not the DM's job, it's the player's (else it's called railroading :smallwink: and a whole different kind of crying foul ensues, someone even made a whole comic on it :smallbiggrin:). If the player chooses (by inaction, but still) to remain ignorant of the condition and state the headpiece is in I don't see why the DM should hjold the player's hand and point him at the possible consequences, though that is actually more a question of the group dynamic then rules. (I know I got dunked into the deep end of the pool the first time I played and after a couple of sessions lost my very first very own very unoptimized character, so this sounds reasonable to me, if it's not please tell me...)

[Lonely Tylenol]

So, Tylenol and Xaragos, according to you being stupid and not mindful of consequences while looting a headstone in a horrocampaign and crying foul afterwards is quite acceptable behavior (yes I'm turning this around)?

If I might refer the the OP, the player whooped about rolling 20, and then heard he had to shake hands with a ghoul soon...

Are we resorting to ad hominem attacks on the player, now?

Who's to say the player is "being stupid and not mindful of consequences"? If by "being stupid and not mindful of consequences" you mean "making the tacit assumption that being more proficient in something makes him better at doing it right than a less proficient person, and then acting on that assumption", or "acting on the belief that the fundamental principles of the d20 system that are the reason d20 is being played in this environment are in effect", then yes, I suppose he was "being stupid and not mindful of consequences". If he was aware, at character creation, that he was going to be playing Calvinball, the only smart thing the player could have done is roll a Warlock with 18 CON and 3 in everything else, so he can take 20 on every check without passing the normal success range into "success" range.


Oh, in my use of your example which you thought to have defused: my intentions were separating lid from jar. Even though I turned the wrong way around, thus phrasing it like: "I turn the Lid right to get the lid off. I roll a str check {rolls fantastically] I break the lid off the jar with pieces of glass flying around. the relevance is comparable in my eyes if the rogue says he pries the rubies loose with a dagger. He's not interested in the structural integrity of the headpiece, like I was with just getting the lid off... This may sound like lawyering, but that's what you do when raw get brought into it. That's why it's important to know what the player said exactly before rolling his check. that alone could dictate a ****-move or not...

...Um... No. That is pretty much the exact opposite of what happens, no matter how many times you state the contrary. Don't talk like this is a by-the-books reading of RAW, because you move more and more into houserule territory every time you argue this point. Calling out the wrong action, and then rolling high, does not equate to the roll determining the degree of failure. In fact, calling out the wrong action, and then rolling high, should increase the degree of success; if, for example (going back to in-game examples with foundations in the rules, here), you make a Bluff check that is "hard to believe or puts the target at significant risk" (a -10 penalty on the check), by virtue of trying to lie about the wrong things (such as giving the guard information he already believes to be false), you make the Bluff check, at the usual -10 penalty. If you roll high, and have a high modifier, you will nevertheless succeed at the Bluff as you intended; this is the equivalent of telling an implausible lie, but doing it so well that you are believed anyway. However, let's say that the guard's Sense Motive is 13 higher than yours. Now, per the Bluff rules, the guard is not only unwilling to go along with your Bluff, but outright sees through it: the worst possible degree of failure (your have been caught in your lie). The kicker is, if your lie was more plausible (a net +0 on the check), you would have only failed by three: assuming everything else was identical, the guard would have been unwilling to go along with you ruse, but at least they wouldn't have exposed you for the liar that you are. In other words, your attempt at performing the action wrongly merely increased the odds that you would achieve the worst possible failure--provided you roll low.

Let's go back to the pickle jar. Let's say opening a pickle jar is a fairly easy task--a DC10, something that can be accomplished by the average person who takes 10 on the check. Failure by 10 or less means you simply fail to open the jar (but can retry). Failure by 11 or more means you shatter the jar outright, spoiling the contents of the jar in the process--the greatest possible extent to which you can fail. You decide that you are going to open the jar by twisting to the right--the "wrong" course of action. As a result of calling out the wrong action, you suffer a -2 penalty on the check due to unfavorable conditions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm) (misleading information). Initially, you take 10 on the check, but to your puzzlement, the jar doesn't open (assuming an average STR, your take 10 result is 8). As a result of this failure, you decide to roll--and roll a natural 1, for a modified result of -1 due to unfavorable conditions. As a result, you have, improbably, failed the check by 11 or more: you apply your strength in the worst possible way imaginable, probably by trying with all your might to twist the jar in the wrong way, and as a result, you shatter the jar, spilling its contents onto the floor and risking cutting your hands.

You'll notice that I assigned this spectacular failure to the natural 1, instead of the natural 20, in spite of the fact that I described you using all your strength. That is because, in the d20 system, more is not better. Better is better. The d20 roll and modifiers never describe how "much" of something you do; instead, they describe the degree of success with which you do something. In this case, the worst possible scenario happened because you rolled a 1 on a check in which you had a circumstance penalty: as a result, instead of trying to open the jar safely to retrieve its contents, you shattered the jar, and destroyed its contents. You did not "succeed, but with caveats". The jar is destroyed with its contents. This is unarguably a worse result than simply failing to open the jar. As a result, the worst possible thing happened to you for achieving the worst possible rolled result.

(For reference: if you had rolled a 12 or higher, thus allowing you to overcome the misleading information of "turn right to open", you would have either realized on the retry that you could turn it left and successfully tried it that way on the second attempt, or, much more improbably, simply succeeded on the result anyway.)

I would have done the exact same thing for the player prying the ruby from the headstone. If I felt that the worst possible outcome would have been to shatter the headstone and unleash the ghoul, then I would have put that at the bottom of the results table--probably at "failure by 11 or more", for a DC15 check. Then, if the player decided to use a method that was possibly destructive, I would have assigned a circumstance penalty (maybe -2 for something like trying to wedge it out with a dagger, which is an improvised tool, although all told I think this is a pretty smart method; maybe -5 with a crowbar, and so on) and let him go at it, and if he failed spectacularly enough (say, a modified result of 3, failing by 12), he would have unleashed the ghoul. I'd do this because more is not better; better is better, and if better is better, then worse is worse.

Using this method, which by the way is completely supported by the basic d20 ruleset and every instance of skill use within it ever because it is a fundamental use of the system, the player has a certain degree of internal consistency in that they know what determines success, and varying degrees of success.

By the way, as an aside, you keep discussing increasingly specific methods of performing a skill as if they should be the final deciding factor in every skill check ever made. Aside from basic, surface-level assumptions about how a thing should be done, and simple roleplaying of perspective actions, I think that this is also a bad idea. Skill checks exist within the system for a reason: aside from a limited range of circumstance bonuses and penalties (correct information, masterwork tools, favorable conditions, competent help, and the inverse of each), there is no way for a player to be able to account for every conceivable aspect of a plan involving one or more checks; thus, the skills exist as a d20+modifier roll in order to create a level of metagame abstraction. This is especially useful in situations where player knowledge and character knowledge are two vastly different things. For example, if given the right tools and an hour of time uninterrupted, even with help, I could not jimmy a locked car with a closed window, or pick even the simplest of locks. My Rogue, however, is a master locksmith, and I expect him to have considerable proficiency at picking a lock. If asked to describe exactly how my Rogue picks the lock, however, I would not be able to tell you the first thing that I would do; I have no player knowledge that my character would have, so aside from "I would use my masterwork thieves' tools (+2 circumstance for the right tools), ask for silence while I concentrate (+2 circumstance for favorable conditions), and/or ask for help from a competent ally (+2 circumstance based on the Aid Another check result), and then I roll this 20-sided dice and pick the damned thing" I would not be able to offer any useful information at all. And then, beyond that, there are checks where player knowledge is simply impossible: "You want to use Spellcraft to identify the spell the enemy is casting? What are you looking for? Oh, somatic components? I'm sorry, this spell is verbal only, you take a -10 on the check."

As a DM and as a player, you have to rely on at least a certain level of abstraction with dice rolls. If the player could describe their every action in explicit detail, and then have success or failure determined by the degree to which their necessary precautions are taken and how much their character is assumed to be competent at the thing on those bases alone, that would be great, but it also wouldn't be d20 (and it would be much more simulationist than abstractionist). I'm not saying that these penalties and bonuses couldn't be applied in many of these situations, but roleplaying of the action cannot possibly account for every possible contingency, nor can circumstance bonuses and penalties obviate every roll: on some level, abstraction and random chance have to be accepted as a core mechanic of the system, or the whole thing falls apart.

[Gwendol]

As I said, it's nearly futile to try and referee a situation without actually know much about it, so I'm not claiming to have all (any) answers :smallsmile:

As a general rule though, having something really bad happening on roll of 20 on a check (and exceeding the DC of the task really well) goes against the design of the ruleset. This explains the upsetness of the player. OTOH, the GM sets the rules.
In this case I think it's fair for the GM to understand that his ruling goes against the expectations of the players, and that this is something to consider going forward.

The example of the glass jar just doesn't work for this case: the rogue tried carefully prying the stones with a dagger or similar tool, not smash them loose with a maul.

[Xerxus]

As I said, it's nearly futile to try and referee a situation without actually know much about it, so I'm not claiming to have all (any) answers :smallsmile:

As a general rule though, having something really bad happening on roll of 20 on a check (and exceeding the DC of the task really well) goes against the design of the ruleset. This explains the upsetness of the player. OTOH, the GM sets the rules.
In this case I think it's fair for the GM to understand that his ruling goes against the expectations of the players, and that this is something to consider going forward.

The example of the glass jar just doesn't work for this case: the rogue tried carefully prying the stones with a dagger or similar tool, not smash them loose with a maul.

I have an example. You - barbarian lvl 20 - want to kick down a metal wall. There are 25 liches and the lich king himself a rather great distance from the wall on the other side, not looking at it. You roll a 20 BUT fail to break it. Would it not be easier for them to hear your kick since the result was so high? My interpretation of how to kick through things is to use maximum power in the right place. The higher the result, the better you place the kick and the more power is leveraged. The more power, the more sound. Therefore, it would be easier and easier for the liches to hear the kick the better your result is. Thus producing a worse outcome the higher your result.

If you have another interpretation, fine, but every single DM and player would not see an issue with higher results meaning more power and louder, more spectacular results if there were no liches behind the wall. See my point?

[Answerer]

You keep harping on rolling a 20. Rolling a 20 makes no difference whatsoever. For a Barbarian, you could be talking about a bonus larger than the d20 to begin with. Or maybe he's been badly Strength-drained (to 1) and that's only a DC 15 check.

Anyway, no, I would expect that if he's slamming into the wall with all his might, he's making the same noise no matter what he actually rolls: the roll only changes the success or failure at breaking the door. If he specifically says he tries to force it quietly – putting his shoulder against it and trying to shove it up and in, rather than charging into it, for instance – then he should have a penalty on the same check and make a smaller noise, leaving the liches with a higher DC to hear him.

It does not follow to me that a higher check result should make more noise at all. I can make all kinds of noise failing to open a door, and higher results are better. That is the base rule of the entire system.

[Gwendol]

Xerxus: I have no idea why you giving a completely different example contributes to this discussion. As Answerer shows, it carries its own issues. So, if you have anything to say about the OP, please do.

[hymer]

@ Xerxus: That's the first example on your side of the fence I've seen yet that works for me. Nicely done!
I think, though, that the fact that you caught me out there has more to do with me being mistaken (thinking higher roll equals bigger boom) than with it being right that a higher roll could reasonably have worse consequences. Your example indicates to me that this gut reaction can be problematic.

Though I reside on this side of the fence (that OP shouldn't have done what he did), I think this whole debate has shown that there are strong opinions on both sides, and this is something gaming groups should take into consideration if they encounter the problem.
But I also think that the rules point clearly in one direction, and that not following this direction will tend to result in weirdness (as the talk about taking 20 has shown) and frustration (as the OP told his player felt) if it isn't adressed properly.

In the end, how much frustration should the players put up with? Is it worth it to go counter to the rules and frustrate the player to institute this houserule? What does the DM get in return?

[Xerxus]

Xerxus: I have no idea why you giving a completely different example contributes to this discussion. As Answerer shows, it carries its own issues. So, if you have anything to say about the OP, please do.

My point about the OP is this. Since no one would have complained if this very scenario had happened without the ghoul in the sarcophagus, it doesn't matter that the ghoul was in there. The check couldn't possibly make him immune from the ghoul and choosing to let his strength check represent the amount of force applied is maybe not what everyone would have done but that does not matter.

He basically made it into two checks, neither of which pertains to knowing if the ghoul was in there. The first check dislodges the jewel (which it apparently does since the headstone is cleaved, essentially that has to dislodge the jewel). The second check, with a higher DC, is in effect the player unintentionally also placing leverage on a vital point which might break the sarcophagus in the cases where he dislodges the jewel.

The point of my other examples is that high rolls should not necessarily protect a player from bad things - especially not in a horror scenario. You might not want it to be true, but it is not RAW that a higher result on a strength check would mean the same force applied more appropriately.

[Answerer]

Just because no one complains does not mean it wasn't wrong. The problem is equally existent regardless of the ghoul/liches, it's just that without them it's not worth making a fuss over. Your argument is invalid.

[Rogue Shadows]

I see this whole situation as not really indestinguishable from a rogue picking a lock on a door, opening the door, and finding himself face-to-face with the beholder.

A high Disable Device/Open Locks roll will not negate whether or not the beholder is on the other side of the door. It has nothing to do with what's on the other side of the door. Should the Rogue get a Listen check to see if he can hear the beholder on the other side of the door? Absolutely, but that's a separate check.

Let's break away from skills for a moment. The PCs are fighting the evil Prince Badguy, who can kick ass and take names and has already killed the party healer. The fighter rolls a natural 20 and confirms a critical hit, and Prince Badguy dies. A few minutes later, the PCs learn that only Prince Badguy knew the secret password to get by his Door of Doom, which they need to get past because of Reasons*.

See? The fact that the fighter critical'd and killed Prince Badguy was undoubtedly a good effect in the moment, since he was kicking ass and taking names. But it still created a long-term inconvenience: they can't get past the Door of Doom easily now and instead have to rely on Open Lock, or knock, or otherwise deal with a problem that wouldn't be a problem if the fighter hadn't killed Prince Badguy.

I personally can't meaningfully distinguish this from the OP's scenario. Immediate benefit: rubies! But causes a subsequent inconvenience: Ghoul.

----------------
*Reasons being the name of the dragon chasing them.

[Gwendol]

Please discuss the actual problem, rather than muddling the discussiun with more or less unrelated examples. Rolling high doesn't mean more, it means better. Let's agree on that before proceeding.

[hymer]

@ RS: I guess the meaningful distinction I see, is that in your examples, the PC is trying to enter a room or kill a guy. High rolls means the PC succeeds at that task.
In the case the OP presents, the PC is trying to get rubies. He rolls well, which causes him to succeed (well, sorta), but also adds a detrimental effect he would otherwise have avoided. Perhaps more importantly, had he rolled less well, he would have gotten a result closer to his aim - prying rubies loose rather than spreading them all over the floor.
To make your examples like the OP's case, we'd have to make it so that if the PC rolled extra well, there'd be a beholder behind the door. If he rolled moderately well, he'd get the door opened with no beholder. And if he rolled poorly, the door wouldn't open.
Or Prince Badguy would only be the source to the secret if he was struck by a critical hit. If you kill him without getting lucky, there'd be a hint in his log book.

Now add a bard to the mix who buffs rolls, and this 'rolling well is bad' means that getting buffed is not a buff. It's a penalty, as it will make it less likely you will succeed at checks. Sure, there may be the occasional case (like the beholder behind the door) where you'd rather fail in hindsight. But you still wouldn't argue to the DM that the bard's buff should not work in such a case. Would you?

Heck, if you just play by the rules instead of instituting this houserule, you won't get this problem as far as I can tell. So the question becomes, what do you gain from this houserule? Why would you institute it in the first place, even before you realize it angers and annoys some of your players? And before you realize how it messes with things like taking 20, with buffs, and with making the weakling wizard the best one to break doors down, too, of course.

[Ashtagon]

I see this whole situation as not really indestinguishable from a rogue picking a lock on a door, opening the door, and finding himself face-to-face with the beholder.


Except this analogy is more like 1-14 fail, 15-17 you pick the lock, 18-20 you pick the lock and find a beholder on the other side.

[Threadnaught]

@Tylenal, so if I'm having trouble with a locked door I should be able to use a fantastic Strength modifier to knock the lock open silently without damaging the rest of the door?

I need to get through this room without alerting anyone, of course I'd be able to open the door with no consequences, I rolled a 20 and after rolling againto to make sure, I rolled another. I have a set of lockpicks, but my Dexterity sucks and I only have one rank in Disable Device and Open Lock. I'm not giving them to the party Rogue though, he'll try to steal them.

[Xerxus]

Please discuss the actual problem, rather than muddling the discussiun with more or less unrelated examples. Rolling high doesn't mean more, it means better. Let's agree on that before proceeding.

No, because better at strength means different things to you and me. I see it as more strength and more appropriately leveraged, you see it as more appropriately leveraged only. Better should not mean protects you from bad consequences as a direct result of your course of action.

How about this example. A diplomacy check is made, to make sure that an indifferent person is made friendly. This in order to make the person answer some questions about his secret organization. However, the person in question has been fed false information from his superiors, which he believes to be the true facts about his organization. Unfortunately, the person is not made friendly but helpful. On friendly, the information would have been common knowledge, maybe some facts about what the organization stands for. But on helpful, he reveals their secret lair. Which is actually one massive superdeadly trap. So because they roll higher they are very clearly given worse results.

The above situation is all RAW.

This is not a common situation, since the players are usually clever enough to make sure that their courses of action make high rolls equate good results. In this case and some others, it makes their valiant efforts counterproductive.

EDIT: Let me add to this. The party wisdom dude uses sense motive to see if he's lying to them. A lower roll but under the threshold could make the DM say that he's lying. Which clearly is the better result, since the information is false whether or not he actually was lying.

[hymer]

@ Xerxus: The example you give is, as you say, good according to RAW. OP's case isn't. OP added a house rule that results in rolling higher stops meaning you do better at what you specifically aim to do.

Edit: In my PHB, Sense Motive doesn't work they way you describe in your edit. You don't get false results, you get no result or a hunch. It's only when opposing Bluff you can get a 'false' result.

[Xerxus]

@ Xerxus: The example you give is, as you say, good according to RAW. OP's case isn't. OP added a house rule that results in rolling higher stops meaning you do better at what you specifically aim to do.

What he specifically aimed to do was in my opinion apply as much strength and as precisely as he could in order to dislodge the jewels. However, the application of too much strength was interpreted by the DM as being enough to break the sarcophagus. This is not against nor is it in line with any specific rule. Which I why it is up to the DM to decide.

[Origomar]

I think so. The entire point of a roll is to see how well you accomplish a task.


rolling 1-20 the lower the roll the less effective you are at whatever task.

The mistake is assuming that because in most cases the higher the roll the more force you apply(because it it normally assumed that if you didnt roll high enough, you werent strong enough to break the door, however the d20 is merely used as an account of effectiveness at doing a specific task, and is not assigned an attribute for each specific task.)

For example lets say a DC is 15 to break something. You are rolling to see how effective your attempt at breaking that object is in that one instance. You roll a 14 it doesnt break, you roll a 16 next round it does break.

It does not mean that you necessarily hit it harder the second time. You could have hit it harder the first time, but hit it in the wrong spot. From what i understand details are left to speculation/for roleplaying purposes.



So yes it was a "**** move" because the general consensus is that "high number good, low number bad"

[hymer]

As much as he could? There's no indication of that in the original post. We're told that the player "wanted to get the rubies out with his dagger". He didn't say he wanted to smash it to bits, and he used a dagger, not a hammer.
We don't know exactly what words were used, but judging from the player's reaction, he felt misinterpreted in using that sort of force.

[nedz]

I think that it depends upon the player's intent.

A. Was it the player's intent to remove the gem by smashing the stone ?
B. Or was it the player's intent to remove the gem by smashing the stone as hard as he could ?

It's the same, though perhaps a little clearer, with the jump example.

A. The PC intends to jump over the pit.
B. The PC intends to jump as far as they can.

In both B cases then the OP's approach would have been correct.

In both A cases then the player is aiming for a more precise goal, and the OP's approach doesn't reflect that.

[Xerxus]

I think so. The entire point of a roll is to see how well you accomplish a task.


rolling 1-20 the lower the roll the less effective you are at whatever task.

The mistake is assuming that because in most cases the higher the roll the more force you apply(because it it normally assumed that if you didnt roll high enough, you werent strong enough to break the door, however the d20 is merely used as an account of effectiveness at doing a specific task, and is not assigned an attribute for each specific task.)

For example lets say a DC is 15 to break something. You are rolling to see how effective your attempt at breaking that object is in that one instance. You roll a 14 it doesnt break, you roll a 16 next round it does break.

It does not mean that you necessarily hit it harder the second time. You could have hit it harder the first time, but hit it in the wrong spot. From what i understand details are left to speculation/for roleplaying purposes.



So yes it was a "**** move" because the general consensus is that "high number good, low number bad"


As the diplomacy example shows it isn't always good.

[Gwendol]

Again, had the thief been using a sledgehammer to dislodge the gems then maybe such an interpretation of the strength check may have been warranted. The check is not a measure of strength or even force of impact. Just how well the character applies his (usual) strength to a situation. So, rolling a 20 can't be applying too much strength. That's clearly outside the rules.

[Killer Angel]

Thank you KA for swordsaging me :smallbiggrin:

If I can help... :smallwink:



So yes it was a "**** move" because the general consensus is that "high number good, low number bad"

I would say that no, it wasn't, 'cause it was an house rule already used, and the players knew it.
It was a bad house rule, but that's it.

[Lonely Tylenol]

@Tylenal, so if I'm having trouble with a locked door I should be able to use a fantastic Strength modifier to knock the lock open silently without damaging the rest of the door?

...What?


I need to get through this room without alerting anyone, of course I'd be able to open the door with no consequences, I rolled a 20 and after rolling againto to make sure, I rolled another. I have a set of lockpicks, but my Dexterity sucks and I only have one rank in Disable Device and Open Lock. I'm not giving them to the party Rogue though, he'll try to steal them.

...What?

Nothing you've just said makes sense to me, relative to anything I've said in this thread. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not even sure what you're responding to; this is such an out-of-left field response that I literally have no clue what you are talking about.

So let's try this again: First, if you could please, quote what this is a response to. Second, maybe elaborate on the thought process that you're following through with, here. Why, in the love of all things holy, are you suddenly replacing an Open Lock check with a "silent, lock-opening STR check"? What is the dichotomy here? What made you think this was the most logical conclusion to any of my arguments, here?

[Threadnaught]

Nothing you've just said makes sense to me, relative to anything I've said in this thread. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not even sure what you're responding to; this is such an out-of-left field response that I literally have no clue what you are talking about.

I would've quoted your statement that I mocked, but consoles have limited functions in forums.
You mentioned something along the lines of how players who roll high with the wrong checks, should be allowed to succeed with similar results to the ones they would've got with a successful roll with the correct check.
I was testing your argument with a situation that could use either Strength or Dexterity just as the one in the OP did. Strength was used to force it out where Dexterity could've been used to extract it without damaging the rest of the headstone enough for it to collapse.

While I'm not completely behind the OP, because players and DMs alike, all expect the higher number to not instantly screw them over. I do think that their players should remember which house rules are in effect and put a little more consideration into their actions. I've rarely heard about players being wiped as a result of the DM's **** moves. Almost every story I here is about the players making a mistake of their own doing and blaming the DM. Most stories I've heard that involve bad DMing, the players all leave before they have a chance to die.
I'm not saying the players should play like chess grandmasters, or that the OP is blameless, but it would help them if they slowed down a little before making a decision.

The first session I DMed was built around a single massive **** move, one that abused the players' expectations of the setting to their detriment. A few sessions in and they realize that it's racist to shoot goblins on sight, sometimes quest givers are crazy, sometimes they even lie. They still make a lot of mistakes, but they've left most of their videogame gained expectations at the door and are happy to learn more about their surroundings and the creatures that inhabit them.

[Worira]

Except, again, the DM was the one who called for a strength check and then used that to screw over the player.

[Augmental]

When was "****" removed from the thread title?

[Darius Kane]

Why is that relevant?

[Lonely Tylenol]

I would've quoted your statement that I mocked, but consoles have limited functions in forums.

OK, then. I kind of understand--I post from my phone, generally, and am limited by what a mobile browser can do.


You mentioned something along the lines of how players who roll high with the wrong checks, should be allowed to succeed with similar results to the ones they would've got with a successful roll with the correct check.
I was testing your argument with a situation that could use either Strength or Dexterity just as the one in the OP did. Strength was used to force it out where Dexterity could've been used to extract it without damaging the rest of the headstone enough for it to collapse.

Well... Yes and no. By "wrong action", I mean the same general type of action--for instance, regardless of what fine details you are using, the same general methods. For example, in the case of the OP's example, one could use a dagger to try to pry the gem out, but as an improvised tool ill-suited to the job, you would suffer at least a -2 penalty to the check (with an even worse tool, the penalty could be more severe). On the other hand, if, say, I could be allowed to use my masterwork thieves' tools, which would probably contain just the right tools for such a job, I would gain a +2 circumstance bonus on the check. An argument could be made for making a Disable Device check in place of the STR check, but I'm merely talking about making the same type check in a vacuum, with circumstances affecting your likelihood of success.

As for your Open Lock check as described above: no, that is NOT a check that could be done as a STR check. Opening a lock is not only a check that exclusively requires finesse, but it's also a specific skill: namely, the Open Lock skill. Should one be unable to open the lock as per the skill check, they could force it open with a STR check, but by definition, this is not an Open Lock check; it's a check to force open the lock. You aren't making the same check as the Open Lock check in order to produce the same results; instead, you're making a STR check, with different outcomes. Forcing open the lock doesn't necessarily immediately alert someone to your presence, but the Listen check on their end would be lower. Success would likely force the lock open, but might damage it in the process (but not as a matter of "too much success" breaking the lock; if the lock breaks as a result of a successful roll, then it happens either as a result of marginal success/failure, or the lock could only be opened by breaking it). I honestly couldn't tell you what happens to the lock (in real life or in D&D) if you force the lock open with a successful STR check, but be clear on this: the STR check is not an Open Lock check with your STR modifier. (It's not even certain that you would make a STR check: the Open Lock skill says you can make the check untrained, which heavily implies if not outright demands a DEX check, which, by the by, probably wouldn't ever destroy the lock). In either case, one thing is clear: forcing the lock open (an ability check) is more difficult, on the whole, than a trained Open Lock check, representing the increased difficulty of the "wrong action".

If you need to get through the door, of course, there are other alternatives beyond an Open Lock (or a STR check) on the lock. For example, you could perform a STR check on the door itself in order to break it down, but there are two likely caveats: first, the door being locked may increase the break DC of the door a bit. Second, obviously breaking in the door isn't the silent affair that picking it would. Finally, a lock, like everything else made with materials, has hardness and hit points per inch; one could, if they took the time, sunder the lock (with a basic attack roll, Mountain Hammer, Shatter, Baleful Utterance, and so on), but no matter what you do to get through that door, one thing is universally true: a higher result means a greater degree of success.

That is not to say that a higher result guarantees success. If my Open Lock modifier is +11 (+6 ranks, +3 DEX modifier, +2 bonus for MW thieves' tools), and I am trying to open an Amazing lock (DC40). I could roll as high as I possibly can, but the highest result I could possibly make is 31, on a natural 20--and this is not enough to guarantee my success at all. I could, as an alternative, make the check as an untrained check--either STR or DEX--but if I could not make it as a trained skill check, it is extremely unlikely, if not outright impossible, for me to force the lock open as an untrained check (it is impossible as a DEX check, but it is theoretically possible for my STR modifier to be high enough to enable me to force open the lock when my skill check isn't enough). This will require me to find some other recourse--hopefully something with a lower save DC, or no DC at all. But for every d20 I roll, I can always count on a higher result being a lower one. Maybe it will be better by a factor of zero, in cases where I would succeed even on a one or fail even on a twenty, but the fact that I will always do better at what I do on a higher check result is a fundamental assumption everyone must make in order for this game to function properly.


The first session I DMed was built around a single massive **** move, one that abused the players' expectations of the setting to their detriment. A few sessions in and they realize that it's racist to shoot goblins on sight, sometimes quest givers are crazy, sometimes they even lie. They still make a lot of mistakes, but they've left most of their videogame gained expectations at the door and are happy to learn more about their surroundings and the creatures that inhabit them.

That's a touching story, but every single one of those examples sounds like unconventional refluffing of how creatures live and think in the world--and that's okay. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that; in fact, I am currently running a game where the players--all creatures of the "old" world--have journeyed to a recently discovered continent where their own kin are systematically oppressing and segregating the local population, all animalistic people and the like all their own. Similarly, I get that house rules are in effect, and players should be mindful of them: my other game is an E6 game, the same variant of 3.5 as the OP runs, although it's not rooted as firmly in the horror genre (it's been mostly magitech war/intrigue up to this point).

But a rule that takes a fundamental element of the d20 system and then turns it on its head is, if anything, something that should be discussed with the group on creation and agreed upon by the group, not sprung upon the player after the result has been rolled, which is what happened the first time (by the second, precedent was established, but the player clearly did not agree with the ruling either time).

[Gnome Alone]

Why is that relevant?

The OP has resolved the argument; we can now all agree that it was definitively "a move."

[Rogue Shadows]

Except, again, the DM was the one who called for a strength check and then used that to screw over the player.

He didn't screw over the player. If Acererak the Demilich had popped out of the sarcophagus, or even a vampire spawn, then he'd of screwed over the player. But a ghoul is nothing more nor less than a walking bag of XP and treasure, a level-appropriate encounter at level 1 and a speedbump beyond that.

Like I said, the best DMs are just a little sadistic; having said that, I don't think a ghoul popping out of a sarcophagus is a **** move at any level.

If anything the process was streamlined: now the players don't have to waste time cracking open the sarcophagus themselves.

[hymer]

@ RS: No need to focus so hard on the ghoul. Ghouls happen. This one, according to the OP as he described later in the thread, was not a speed bump, but rather caused the player to flee, leaving the rubies behind.
The focus is that this ghoul needn't have happened. The only way this ghoul was going to happen was if someone bust open the sarcophagus. It is this detrimental thing happening because the player rolled well that causes the annoyance, it's not the ghoul per se.
Also note that the player apparently didn't say he was going to smash anything with anything, but the DM decided that this is what the PC was doing. And it seems a lot like he decided this because doing otherwise would have had no chance of releasing the ghoul. It makes it seem as if he wanted to pull a move on the player which the player then would later describe with four asterisks.

[Xaragos]

What he specifically aimed to do was in my opinion apply as much strength and as precisely as he could in order to dislodge the jewels. However, the application of too much strength was interpreted by the DM as being enough to break the sarcophagus. This is not against nor is it in line with any specific rule. Which I why it is up to the DM to decide.

The DM called for the strength check. The player obliged, who is going to argue that fact? Personally, I propose alternatives before rolling especially being a rogue who does this stuff frequently, but thats neither here nor there.

Let me repeat....THE DM SAID TO ROLL STRENGTH.

Ok so by the very foundations of DND.


Using Skills
When your character uses a skill, you make a skill check to see how well he or she does. The higher the result of the skill check, the better. Based on the circumstances, your result must match or beat a particular number (a DC or the result of an opposed skill check) for the check to be successful. The harder the task, the higher the number you need to roll.
Circumstances can affect your check. A character who is free to work without distractions can make a careful attempt and avoid simple mistakes. A character who has lots of time can try over and over again, thereby assuring the best outcome. If others help, the character may succeed where otherwise he or she would fail.


Untrained Skill Checks
Generally, if your character attempts to use a skill he or she does not possess, you make a skill check as normal. The skill modifier doesn’t have a skill rank added in because the character has no ranks in the skill. Any other applicable modifiers, such as the modifier for the skill’s key ability, are applied to the check.

Many skills can be used only by someone who is trained in them.


Ability Checks
Sometimes a character tries to do something to which no specific skill really applies. In these cases, you make an ability check. An ability check is a roll of 1d20 plus the appropriate ability modifier. Essentially, you’re making an untrained skill check.

In some cases, an action is a straight test of one’s ability with no luck involved. Just as you wouldn’t make a height check to see who is taller, you don’t make a Strength check to see who is stronger.

What is the saying, houserules are like ****....everyone has them and they all (or mostly) stink. Hah, just teasing. But seriously RAW I just can't defend the DM in this situation. It goes counter to the entire D20 system as designed.

[Rogue Shadows]

The only way this ghoul was going to happen was if someone bust open the sarcophagus.

Has the OP actually said this? That is, the ghoul would not have been encountered otherwise? 'Cause if I were running the game all that this would amount to is a surprise round. I have a ghoul-in-the-box, I'm not going to just leave it there.


It goes counter to the entire D20 system as designed.

Rule 0: the rules are only a guideline and should never get in the way of an interesting play experience. This is the golden rule of every RPG. And a ghoul-in-a-box is certainly interesting.


The higher the result of the skill check, the better.

You keep saying this like we're all going to reveal that we treat natural 19s as automatic failures, but it isn't the point of contention. The point of contention is that the ghoul being in the sarcophagus and popping out is unrelated to the strength check. He rolled high enough to get the rubies, he succeeded in the Strength check. The ghoul popping out and the player being caught unawares is just a streamlined way to begin a combat encounter.

If the player had cast detect undead and turned up nothing, then there'd be some shennaniganry. If he had made a Listen check and rolled a 37 but heard nothing, then there'd be problems. If he'd opened the sarcophagus, found nothing, closed it, pryed out the rubies, and then been subject to ghoul-in-a-box, then there'd be issues. But the player was playing in a horror campaign and decided to take no precautions against whether or not something was in a sarcophagus or otherwise investigate the scene beyond "ooh! Shiny!"

If he'd pried loose a ruby and then had to make a Reflex save against an arrow trap, no one would complain. If the DM had worded things just a little differently to say that prying loose a ruby sets off a mechanism that opens up the sarcophagus and resulted in ghoul-in-a-box, no one would care. Heck, if the DM had decided that no matter the Strength check result the headstone would fall and break it open, then no one would complain. There is no meaningful difference because the player failed to do anything beyond simply go for the shiny without doing anything to investigate whether or not it might be trapped. It's his own goddamn fault.

[Gwendol]

Now you are arguing something else. The ghoul being released was a function of the strength check; specifically that the player rolled "too high". The ruling by the DM has a precedence but, as we've hopefully showed, it is also against the basic design of the D20 rules. Because the DM in this case actually uses the strength check to gauge the force applied, not how well the player succeeds at his task.

[hymer]

I asked him to roll a strength check, inside my head mapping out that below 14 would be a failure, 15-17 being success and 18+ would be breaking the headstone, which would then fall onto the sarcophagus, breaking it open and releasing the ghoul inside.

@ RS: As the quote shows, the ghoul was 'released', indicating it was trapped until then. Someone would have to release it, apparently by crushing the sarcophagus lid. So to your question, yes, this is what the OP indicated, albeit with few details.

Edit: Maybe worth mentioning, if you are going to set the ghoul on the PCs regardless, there's not much sense in attaching the attack to a particularly high roll and frustrating your players.

[Xaragos]

@ RS: As the quote shows, the ghoul was 'released', indicating it was trapped until then. Someone would have to release it, apparently by crushing the sarcophagus lid. So to your question, yes, this is what the OP indicated, albeit with few details.

Edit: Maybe worth mentioning, if you are going to set the ghoul on the PCs regardless, there's not much sense in attaching the attack to a particularly high roll and frustrating your players.

That is exactly my point. Enough with the rule 0 nonsense. Read the OP's post. It was poorly designed and misinterprets the basic rules.

Having chance for a ghoul to pop out is cool. Heck having one pop out 100% of the time is cool. Having a successful roll sandwiched inbetween values in a system where more is better is NOT cool.


below 14 would be a failure, 15-17 being success and 18+ would be breaking the headstone, which would then fall onto the sarcophagus, breaking it open and releasing the ghoul inside.

[ko_sct]

Like I pointed out in my previous post, the real problem here is not that a ghoul could pop-up.

The problem is that they have a 15% chance of doing exactly what they want and NO way of improving this. All resources they put to that action only improve their chance of making the ghoul pop-out, not of simply taking the ruby.

It's actively punishing the player should they deem this task important enough to use ressources improving their odds.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Except, again, the DM was the one who called for a strength check and then used that to screw over the player.

I think a lot of people have chosen to forget this. Especially when they argue that negative results are ok "because using a strength check was a bonehead move". Sure the player could have argued for a different check, but maybe they wanted to obey rule 0 or 1 or 34 or whatever and not argue with the DM over a simple check.

[Thunndarr]

On friendly, the information would have been common knowledge, maybe some facts about what the organization stands for. But on helpful, he reveals their secret lair. Which is actually one massive superdeadly trap. So because they roll higher they are very clearly given worse results.


Wrong. Getting access to a higher level of information is a better result. Trusting whether the informant himself was duped would require a separate check. Follow-up questions such as "Oh, you've been there? What's in it?" etc. would quickly reveal that the informant was going on second-hand information.

[Xerxus]

Wrong. Getting access to a higher level of information is a better result. Trusting whether the informant himself was duped would require a separate check. Follow-up questions such as "Oh, you've been there? What's in it?" etc. would quickly reveal that the informant was going on second-hand information.

Likewise, rolling higher gives you more strength.

For all those of you who claim that higher result =/= more strength, explain why rage would make you better at this.

[Xerxus]

I think a lot of people have chosen to forget this. Especially when they argue that negative results are ok "because using a strength check was a bonehead move". Sure the player could have argued for a different check, but maybe they wanted to obey rule 0 or 1 or 34 or whatever and not argue with the DM over a simple check.

Stealing treasure from a tomb was a bonehead move since there was a precedent.

[Gwendol]

Likewise, rolling higher gives you more strength.

For all those of you who claim that higher result =/= more strength, explain why rage would make you better at this.

But it doesn't! Your strength is what it is, it is never decided by a strength check! Raging increases your strength, which improves the odds of a successful strength check but that does not mean that you are applying more strength.

If you are stronger, you have more leverage in how to apply your strength. You can lift or push at an angle at which weaker individuals would have found the task impossible for example.

[Xerxus]

But it doesn't! Your strength is what it is, it is never decided by a strength check!

Yes, but it is reasonable to expect that you are able to apply differing amounts of it depending on the circumstances. If what you say is true then web shouldn't call for a strength check, it should just check your strength score and either release you or not since there is no way to argue for it being anything other than raw strength applied.

[hymer]

there is no way to argue for it being anything other than raw strength applied.

Here's a way: Roll low, and your movements get you entangled while you seek to disentangle yourself, so you spend your time disentangling yourself from the mess you made rather than making progress. Roll high, you manage to move so as to put a strain on little enough web at a time that you actually get somewhere. The stronger you are, the more web can you deal with at once, and if you do poorly, you may still pull yourself out, simply because you're strong enough to deal with that amount of web.

Regardless of this, what's the reason for applying arbitrary negative consequences to high rolls? What does this achieve, besides player frustration?

Edit: Come to think of it, why would the d20 represent how much of your available power you use in a strength check, rather than the element of chance? What if the player says "I tap gently with the hammer on the pane" or "I pull all back and swing with all my might". What if the die contradicts what the player says?

[Xaragos]

Yes, but it is reasonable to expect that you are able to apply differing amounts of it depending on the circumstances. If what you say is true then web shouldn't call for a strength check, it should just check your strength score and either release you or not since there is no way to argue for it being anything other than raw strength applied.

In case you didn't see this the first time when I posted it verbatim:


Ability Checks
Sometimes a character tries to do something to which no specific skill really applies. In these cases, you make an ability check. An ability check is a roll of 1d20 plus the appropriate ability modifier. Essentially, you’re making an untrained skill check.

In some cases, an action is a straight test of one’s ability with no luck involved. Just as you wouldn’t make a height check to see who is taller, you don’t make a Strength check to see who is stronger.

That is clear as day. I sure as heck didn't write it. It was the developers.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Likewise, rolling higher gives you more strength.

For all those of you who claim that higher result =/= more strength, explain why rage would make you better at this.

Since we're continuing to re-hash old arguments, I'll continue to re-quote old posts. Here is the very first thing I said in this thread, which addresses exactly this issue:


The d20 Strength check is not a measure of "how much strength do you use"; it's a measure of "how well do you apply your strength". Your STR score is not a variable number when you need to roll it for a d20 check: you have the exact same STR modifier, carrying capacity, and all other effects dependent on your STR score whether you roll a 1 or a 20 or any number in-between; it's how efficiently your STR is being applied that is being measured with a d20 roll (with a higher number always being objectively better than a lower number, because it's the degree of success being measured, not the amount of force being applied).

Consider this example. Tordek, the Half-Orc Barbarian (PHB), STR 17, tries to make a Strength check on a good door (DC18). He rolls a 5, for a total result of 8, and fails to break the door. Mailee, the Elf Wizard (PHB again), STR 8, decides she can do it better, and STR checks the door. She rolls a 20, for a total result of 19, and succeeds in breaking down the door. Did Mailee apply more strength on the door than Tordek? Of course not; Mailee does not have more Strength. She did, however, apply the strength she had better, which gave her a greater degree of success than Tordek. How, exactly, this is measured depends on what would determine success and failure; perhaps Tordek threw his (significantly greater) weight into the door nearer the hinges, whereas Mailee applied her strength much closer to the handle, which caused the door to break at the point of least resistance (the mechanical components of the handle, or the shoddy wooden bar holding it together).

To answer your new question: Rage would make you better at a STR check because your actual STR is higher. This is reflected accurately in the modifier of the roll, not in the roll itself, and does not modify my above argument in any way. That's because a character with more STR is assumed to be able to apply more STR in a given situation than a character with low STR, regardless of the rolled result is a 1 or a 20. The roll doesn't determine the amount of STR being applied; it determines the degree of success of the roll. The modifier determines the amount of STR one is capable of applying, by determining the extent to which it modfies your chances of success (a positive STR modifier improving your chances of success, and a negative STR modifier decreasing your chances).

Here's a thought experiment for you: Tordek, as above, is a Half-Orc Barbarian with 17 STR. He really wants to get through that door (DC 18). He flies into a rage, improving his STR to 21. He attempts a STR check on the door (1d20+5) and rolls a 9, for a modified result of 14: not enough to get through the door. A few rounds later, after his rage has ended, he gives it another try: now, his STR score is lower (17, or 15 if he is still considered fatigued as long has he continues on the door). He rolls the same STR check (now 1d20+3, or 1d20+2 if fatigued), but this time rolls an 18, for a modified result of 21 (or 20), successfully kicking in the door. Is Tordek stronger on the second attempt than the first because his roll was higher, even though his actual STR and modifiers are lower?

[Threadnaught]

@Tylenol, it took me a while but I got through that massive wall of text you posted and first of all I want to thank you for all the effort you put into that wallpaper. Secondly, I actually agree with you, you should've probably put your argument like that the first time. :smallamused:

I still think the house rule should be okay for the group in question, since the only person in the group currently complaining is the very player it's affected negatively and changing it now when they've probably gotten used to it would be the biggest **** move of all.


I wouldn't touch it with half of a 10 foot ladder though.

[only1doug]

For all those of you who claim that higher result =/= more strength, explain why rage would make you better at this.

Accroding to Crake's maths rage wouldn't make you better at this, just more likely to release the ghoul.



so I asked him to roll a strength check, inside my head mapping out that below 14 would be a failure, 15-17 being success and 18+ would be breaking the headstone, which would then fall onto the sarcophagus, breaking it open and releasing the ghoul inside.


More strength would not make the check more likely to pass, it would make it more likely to release the ghoul (if the GM was even taking the characters strength score into account, which he may not have been.

Breaking the headstone did not equate to releasing the Jewels, they remained trapped in the broken off section of headstone that freed the ghoul.

IMO Crake did handle this badly, firstly by insisting on a Str check as a method of free the gems (really, wedged in too tightly, so you should use more force to free them? sounds like a recipe for breaking the Jewels to me) and secondly by setting the possibilities in the wrong order (lowest roll should give worst result, highest roll should give best result, its the way d20 works).

[Trebloc]

So, if a raging orc barbarian uses a STR check to pick up a halfling and rolls too high, they throw them through the roof? It must suck for them to try and eat with a fork & knife, since when they roll their STR to pull the fork to their mouth, they're likely to throw it through their skull!

I don't know about you, but when I pick up my 6 year old and my 2 year old over my head (a decent bit of weight difference, but I'm no orc barbarian either), I've never come close to slinging the 2 year old into the ceiling. In both cases, I "made my STR check" and succeeded in lifting the child over my head. Sometimes it's easier than others (duh, I rolled better those times), but I've never bonk them off the ceiling.